Beginning around 17:00, Sandel lays out his argument about economics expanding its reach into areas that are morally contestable and concludes with an example of "market mechanisms or cash incentives" as motivation to replace or influence intate interest or drives. Research supports his argument. Search, "the surprising truth about what motivates us" (RSA Animate)
Is it loving for AC to teach we got all this naturally on its own with NO evidence that can be so? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Yeah, but can AC teach the absurd how this all just happened naturally on its own? I say he can and those clueless enough to believe him, then have at it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Both, it all needs to be taken into account. Also obviously people's opinions on how to be as moral as possible are subjective but morality in itself has an objective value because there is a way to reduce as much human suffering as possible. I'm seeing Grayling tonight :P cant wait
No, they most certainly shouldn't. We also have a responsibility towards the flora, fauna and wider universe in which we move and upon which our conduct leaves an impact.
AC doesn't follow evidence, he runs from it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The problem is that we need a sufficiently expansive notion of harm. What is the scope (in terms of both time and space) of this 'harm-restraint'? For example, depletion of resources (harm to future generations), or national self-interest (harm to people in other lands - specifically things like the international & borrowing resource privilege (read Thomas pogge) or arms treaties, big agriculture subsidies etc)? And does it apply to institutions or interactions, or both? ..continued in next post
Yes it's more complex than i make it out but there is an objective value for the best way to prevent suffering. No one may know what it is but it does exist since 1 will always be lower than 2. Yh that's true but i'm not arguing that driving a car does no damage.
I don't understand what rights his communitarianism gives individuals aside from belonging to democratic society. It sounds like I have no rights unless my rights make a democratic society better.
How do we know what is going to end up harming other people? We may usually know, but we can never be sure? Can we really be sure what constitutes harm? Parents often have to punish, inflict harm, on children for their good in the long term. But what they have to do constitutes harm. Is a fetus "a human being"?
30:51 “Isn’t there something morally troubling…”, “There’s something intellectually troubling, I would have to say.” Says the highly paid, well-fed professor about a woman trying to make sure her child will rise up out of poverty so he will never know hunger. That was a callous and myopic comment.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has done extensive research on brainwashing. Parents/adults start brainwashing children with religion, when they are infants. Prior to them developing cognitive skills to object or opt out. Religion is a means and ways to con, threaten, bully, antagonize, harass and annoy others. Religion is a means and ways to control others emotionally, mentally, physically, verbally and financially.
Beginning around 17:00, Sandel lays out his argument about economics expanding its reach into areas that are morally contestable and concludes with an example of "market mechanisms or cash incentives" as motivation to replace or influence intate interest or drives. Research supports his argument. Search, "the surprising truth about what motivates us" (RSA Animate)
He doesn't throughout acknowledge ethical consideration is democracy otherwise it's totalitarianism
I have the volume cranked to 11 and can barely hear this
LIFE IS JUST TO LOVE AND TO BE LOVED ❤️💜 LOVE ALONE CAN CONQUER THE WORLD.
Is it loving for AC to teach we got all this naturally on its own with NO evidence that can be so?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Everyone should have a right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm other human beings (economically or physically)
Yeah, but can AC teach the absurd how this all just happened naturally on its own? I say he can and those clueless enough to believe him, then have at it.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I like his idea of public resource
Both, it all needs to be taken into account. Also obviously people's opinions on how to be as moral as possible are subjective but morality in itself has an objective value because there is a way to reduce as much human suffering as possible. I'm seeing Grayling tonight :P cant wait
No, they most certainly shouldn't. We also have a responsibility towards the flora, fauna and wider universe in which we move and upon which our conduct leaves an impact.
Democracy is like science in the way that it improves over time as new evidence comes to light
AC doesn't follow evidence, he runs from it.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The problem is that we need a sufficiently expansive notion of harm. What is the scope (in terms of both time and space) of this 'harm-restraint'? For example, depletion of resources (harm to future generations), or national self-interest (harm to people in other lands - specifically things like the international & borrowing resource privilege (read Thomas pogge) or arms treaties, big agriculture subsidies etc)? And does it apply to institutions or interactions, or both? ..continued in next post
Great hair.
Yes it's more complex than i make it out but there is an objective value for the best way to prevent suffering. No one may know what it is but it does exist since 1 will always be lower than 2. Yh that's true but i'm not arguing that driving a car does no damage.
Ethics & values are absolutely distinct
I don't understand what rights his communitarianism gives individuals aside from belonging to democratic society. It sounds like I have no rights unless my rights make a democratic society better.
How do we know what is going to end up harming other people? We may usually know, but we can never be sure? Can we really be sure what constitutes harm? Parents often have to punish, inflict harm, on children for their good in the long term. But what they have to do constitutes harm. Is a fetus "a human being"?
30:51 “Isn’t there something morally troubling…”, “There’s something intellectually troubling, I would have to say.” Says the highly paid, well-fed professor about a woman trying to make sure her child will rise up out of poverty so he will never know hunger. That was a callous and myopic comment.
Wish I could hear the mumbling of that interviewer!
And maybe also when it comes to the enviromental issues.
What a shallow discussion.
Justice not the only virtue of social institutions... Haaaaaaa spesks volumes
America
Grayling has the patience of a saint, ironically enough, listening to this fool.
Well anyone can make an assertion in the youtube comments... what about a philosophical argument?
Religion is a derivative of narcissism.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has done extensive research on brainwashing.
Parents/adults start brainwashing children with religion, when they are infants. Prior to them developing cognitive skills to object or opt out.
Religion is a means and ways to con, threaten, bully, antagonize, harass and annoy others.
Religion is a means and ways to control others emotionally, mentally, physically, verbally and financially.