Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23759904 - 10/22/16 03:21 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
I have been pointing at the effort made in Canada with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms (It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982), to help crystallize what "Morality" is in secular terms.

The issues surrounding rape and any other transgression of personal boundaries are addressed in the Constitution, and the body of law in the country.

I think the essence of morality is the respect of people's boundaries.

Looking at genetics and the incidence of rape among wolves or other species does not change the fact that among humans, i.e. in our social order, we use a code to help regulate and limit interpersonal boundary transgressions.

The code is not simple, but the core of it is one of respect and dignity. Where supply and demand come into it at this time is more peripheral than rape, it is secondary to other transgression-al issues such as race or disability.

Law is already huge, a person could not reasonably know all the laws of the land, even a lawyer needs to be a specialist in this day and age. So we do need to have some self-regulating systems, such as supply and demand, and let core issues like human rights and freedoms blaze limits to those self-regulating systems through the court systems.

Adversarial Law needs both a Plaintiff and an Accused. Something like "supply and demand" is neither.




Maybe I'm being slow, but I don't see how this addresses the moral dilemma outlined in the OP. Could you provide examples where the moral dilemma's that result from supply and demand economics can be mitigated?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: sudly]
    #23759907 - 10/22/16 03:25 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I like chocolate.





That's about as good as we can expect from a moral relativist :shrug:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23759947 - 10/22/16 04:15 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

from your OP
Quote:

blingbling said:
The real problem here is that we don't have a better way to allocate resources than supply and demand economics even though in many cases it is morally unjust. The only other kind of modern economy that has been trailed is central planning or communism which was a total disaster. So, what should we do to mitigate or erase these negative moral manifestations of supply and demand economics?



the operative verb is "to allocate".
the term "moral" is disruptive here.
the key enabler is the right to allocate, which is alluded to but not mentioned by name, but you indicate it was "trialed" but you spelled "trailed" so it did not seem that important in the OP --- COMMUNISM.

the view on this issue therefore is a view of ownership or the morality of the right to own resources: any morality of supply and demand is actually the morality of ownership itself!
distribution can be delegated to something like UBER or AMAZON (both are neither moral nor not moral - you need, you push a button, you pay electronically at the end of the month) - but the core moral issue is the right to own or entitlement, and that extends into the very idea of personal territory, or the right to defend your stuff, and that flattens out into your legal rights and freedoms under the charter/constitution of the country in which you own these things.

Of what specifically do you need an example? I think you are better off refining your question so that it makes sense in terms of what exists.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23759959 - 10/22/16 04:29 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

(food for thought -- no response necessary)
the Positive-Incentive Perspective of Hunger is really interesting, and i think, accurate. (in terms of perspective on S&D, and Morals)

without the pleasure centers of the brain driving incentive/reward, our psychology would permit us, and our biology would permit us, to eat only minimally to rid hunger pangs, primarily because (IMO; it seems...) our bodies do not have the innate ability to tell us what it's missing in it's essential nutritional make-up, ie, what it needs in terms of satiation.

all it tells us, "ouch, hurt" -- and when we eat something, we recognize that our pangs go away, and we move on, thinking "all done". see this poses a problem: because our bodies can rid itself of pangs from minimal intake of food, and of course, still be woefully undernourished, though, biologically, one can't tell that unless you visit a doctor (obviously in human history, a pretty new concept).

sure your body will initiate it's own signals of hunger, but they are simply perceived as pains the body goes through, and to avoid it, it's as easy as eating even the tiniest bit of food -- if we live like that, we don't live long.

the reward system allows us to psychologically WANT more than we need, to the extent that we will break out backs for more (so to speak -- but a nice metaphor), which is essentially better for survival. the fact that we psychological want complimentary good food, due to our intense pleasure in eating foods, (without which there'd be no difference in which foods you eat; another important point; you'd have no preferences, so...) so, you end up wanting to mix and match -- which not only provides for awesome cuisine's within cultures, but also, a much better survival mechanism; stocking up.

just like with women. :cool: (another metaphor??? :crazy2: )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_eating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_medicine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_healthcare


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23759980 - 10/22/16 04:46 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I like chocolate.





That's about as good as we can expect from a moral relativist :shrug:




I'm sorry was I supposed to reply to some sort of point?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling] * 2
    #23762700 - 10/22/16 11:12 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
So is it that you don't see the problems outlined in the OP as actual problems, or that you don't see them as problems worth addressing by governments? If you still think they are problems, but problems governments can't solve, then how should they be addressed?





I think you're missing what I am trying to say. It's difficult to elucidate, for me, anyway, so maybe I'm just not being clear or direct enough.

I don't think the government has any right to cap private sector investments. If people want to pour money into superficial investments, like studying balding patterns and how to make them go away, then that's fine and our right as a free economy to decide. However, I am saying that I think government needs to mandate/better manage funds in certain industries, like education, healthcare, and environmental protections. That could arise in the form of more taxes (like higher fund pools for educations - not just based on property taxes for school zoning districts) and/or better managed services (like a two-payer system for healthcare). Both of those options are pretty unpopular in a conservative capitalist forums. :shrug: I think it would take us, collectively as a society, agreeing that those industries are vital to establishing a thriving future and a basic human right.


--------------------
full blown human


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23765343 - 10/23/16 08:53 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
from your OP
Quote:

blingbling said:
The real problem here is that we don't have a better way to allocate resources than supply and demand economics even though in many cases it is morally unjust. The only other kind of modern economy that has been trailed is central planning or communism which was a total disaster. So, what should we do to mitigate or erase these negative moral manifestations of supply and demand economics?



the operative verb is "to allocate".
the term "moral" is disruptive here.
the key enabler is the right to allocate, which is alluded to but not mentioned by name, but you indicate it was "trialed" but you spelled "trailed" so it did not seem that important in the OP --- COMMUNISM.

the view on this issue therefore is a view of ownership or the morality of the right to own resources: any morality of supply and demand is actually the morality of ownership itself!
distribution can be delegated to something like UBER or AMAZON (both are neither moral nor not moral - you need, you push a button, you pay electronically at the end of the month) - but the core moral issue is the right to own or entitlement, and that extends into the very idea of personal territory, or the right to defend your stuff, and that flattens out into your legal rights and freedoms under the charter/constitution of the country in which you own these things.

Of what specifically do you need an example? I think you are better off refining your question so that it makes sense in terms of what exists.




I think everything you've said is interesting and probably true, but it does't address the problem outlined in the OP. Just because these problems can be construed in legal terms does not mean you offer a solution. If you wish to address the moral dilemma's outlined in the OP within a legal framework then tell me, what laws should be added, changed or left to alone?

I said this to penelope tree and I will pose the same questions to you: So is it that you don't see the problems outlined in the OP as actual problems, or that you don't see them as problems worth addressing by governments? If you still think they are problems, but problems governments can't solve, then how should they be addressed?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #23765384 - 10/23/16 09:11 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Penelope_Tree said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
So is it that you don't see the problems outlined in the OP as actual problems, or that you don't see them as problems worth addressing by governments? If you still think they are problems, but problems governments can't solve, then how should they be addressed?





I think you're missing what I am trying to say. It's difficult to elucidate, for me, anyway, so maybe I'm just not being clear or direct enough.

I don't think the government has any right to cap private sector investments. If people want to pour money into superficial investments, like studying balding patterns and how to make them go away, then that's fine and our right as a free economy to decide. However, I am saying that I think government needs to mandate/better manage funds in certain industries, like education, healthcare, and environmental protections. That could arise in the form of more taxes (like higher fund pools for educations - not just based on property taxes for school zoning districts) and/or better managed services (like a two-payer system for healthcare). Both of those options are pretty unpopular in a conservative capitalist forums. :shrug: I think it would take us, collectively as a society, agreeing that those industries are vital to establishing a thriving future and a basic human right.




With regards to the example of scientific research into male pattern baldness vs aid's research: what if any moral difference is their between regulation of say the education system and the scientific research system? If you think that regulation in the education system is acceptable, and I assume you believe it is acceptable because you agree that it promotes the greatest good for society, why is the research sector off limits for government regulation?

I think you might be trying to dodge the moral problems with supply and demand by reference to the limits of governments interventions in free markets. If government can intervene in the eduction system for the greater good then there is no reason that it could not intervene in similar ways in the research sector.

You say that the government doesn't have the right to cap private investment. Well, the government is the institution which dictates the rights of the individual in the first place. Some argue that governments do not have the right to enforce tax payer contribution to the public education system. But, thankfully enough people, like yourself, believe that it is in the best interest for society to do so. If enough people also believe that it is in the publics best interest to cap private investment into different sectors of the economy then doesn't it follow that it is the right of the government to enforce such laws?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23765411 - 10/23/16 09:24 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Open your eyes Americans for you live in an open Oligarchy.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23765440 - 10/23/16 09:43 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

without repeating myself too much, no laws should be changed without analysis of the system, the root issue is the right to own.

how does the right to own and use what you own can cause a moral dilemma is what the  question has to address.

when there is clear data on that, time can be spent crafting laws and amendments to promote better moral integrity, i.e. fairness.

the basic idea is that while we live we are allowed to own what we legally acquire, how that may go wrong has to be examined and new questions asked.


Changing laws comes way after establishing a need to change laws.
If I were a legislator I would strike this issue from the agenda as soon as it came up for lack of substance.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23765481 - 10/23/16 09:59 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

You have the right to own a gun but not a bazooka, a grenade launcher or a nuclear warhead and there's a good reason for it.

Even something as basic as a proper background check would be nice for guns but in America the NRA lobbies way to hard against gun regulation so that they can sell more guns and keep up profiteering for the military industrial complex.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23767706 - 10/24/16 06:03 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
With regards to the example of scientific research into male pattern baldness vs aid's research: what if any moral difference is their between regulation of say the education system and the scientific research system? If you think that regulation in the education system is acceptable, and I assume you believe it is acceptable because you agree that it promotes the greatest good for society, why is the research sector off limits for government regulation?

I think you might be trying to dodge the moral problems with supply and demand by reference to the limits of governments interventions in free markets. If government can intervene in the eduction system for the greater good then there is no reason that it could not intervene in similar ways in the research sector.






I don't think you're grokking what I'm saying. "Scientific research" is extremely broad, first of all. It encompasses both public health issues, like AIDS research, Parkinsons research, etc and issues like baldness research, skin lightening research, etc. I am saying that public health issues should get social backing and therefore an allocation of public funds, like AIDS research, etc. Others, like baldness research, should not BUT that doesn't mean the government should limit the amount of funds invested in that. I say that in the same respect that I say that government shouldn't limit private school funding, but what it SHOULD do is allocate more funds/better manage the funds allocated towards public schools.

Research is too broad a subject to lump into one category, as it sounds like you're doing.


--------------------
full blown human


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 8 hours
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #23768136 - 10/24/16 08:22 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

It is to the tipping point that we discuss utility..because it is a necessary and derived function of economics..indeed if the worst were true..we would find someone who has a 0 as utility...which would mean he has no needs or wants...or demands met at all..and then we count to the highest ideal..which would be 100% utility..that is the final goal..of An American Dream..or even western philosophy..which is very efficient in election and determination and essence..and philosophy itself.. but the very root of this subtraction is indeed morality..it is common law to understand that people should get what they want and need...and this is a principle based on the founding Father of Economics.. Adam Smith! Serious is a typing catastrophy...from the will and the Brill..to the Bread itself..which is life..and life giving..which is the essence of our economy..which is to support life..in our many and varrying styles..

It is a good look long..looking long is good..to forcast something for the Olympics..is indeed a good and knowing longed..and longing forcast..that the stock market will go up is indeed a good write..and the rite..is of the sacrifice of time..which is what Freemasons want you to do..so the secret society..is indeed a noble but beneficial rite..into and in itself..which is on..and off..the nuances of an economy..are based on principles of thought..which is conjecture..and then to the tertiary industries..like wood and mining for example..which is replete with Orgasm..or orginization..the shelf is a Great wood Leap..to the foremost quantum benefit..of benefaction..of the nuance of the degree...itself..is a rainbow of high morality..and high tides..towards the common degree itself..which is a Great degree..in Spindling..or Soothsaying which is what the economists are trying to do..we have to break down the arguments..about the moral cost of goods..because they are goods that have use and function in our society..and the deliberate effects of which are in the Hind sight of things..which is where we can map and analyze patterns..on a normal earnings ratio..for the people involved..this is very specialized communication..in and out of the knot of the coming end times..which are an Apocalypse anyways..but there is always rebirth and renewal.. so the gross domestic product is a virtue in our sunnder and sunnyer Years..indeed is a ratio a chariot..of the mother of Authority..release is a better virtue..into the minority of the potent point itself..which is really a Slansky effect in and of itself..which shows trends..and alliances..with the welterweight..Good in the coming consumer..consumption is a good going device in time..that we have to manufacture an economy..which is good and all..but the common police say that morals have to come first..and that is why China is not pulling out their T-Bonds..or T-Bills..indeed it is the moral monopoly that rules the world..in games or in real life..we are always on the competitive astronomy and Astrology...in and of itself..is a Great deal to the logos..which is a host in and of itself..or otherwise the source of all things..we have to do things..that ring true! The sound of that rang true..and then we get this election which is about lies and deceit...but we can get the most over grossed profit..knowing that they are mostly and most likely telling the truth..AS FAR AS THEY KNOW IT!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #23768250 - 10/24/16 08:54 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

some shit is just obvious I guess


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23768473 - 10/24/16 10:06 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
some shit is just obvious I guess





:lol:


--------------------
full blown human


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #23768991 - 10/25/16 04:49 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Penelope_Tree said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
With regards to the example of scientific research into male pattern baldness vs aid's research: what if any moral difference is their between regulation of say the education system and the scientific research system? If you think that regulation in the education system is acceptable, and I assume you believe it is acceptable because you agree that it promotes the greatest good for society, why is the research sector off limits for government regulation?

I think you might be trying to dodge the moral problems with supply and demand by reference to the limits of governments interventions in free markets. If government can intervene in the eduction system for the greater good then there is no reason that it could not intervene in similar ways in the research sector.






I don't think you're grokking what I'm saying. "Scientific research" is extremely broad, first of all. It encompasses both public health issues, like AIDS research, Parkinsons research, etc and issues like baldness research, skin lightening research, etc. I am saying that public health issues should get social backing and therefore an allocation of public funds, like AIDS research, etc. Others, like baldness research, should not BUT that doesn't mean the government should limit the amount of funds invested in that. I say that in the same respect that I say that government shouldn't limit private school funding, but what it SHOULD do is allocate more funds/better manage the funds allocated towards public schools.

Research is too broad a subject to lump into one category, as it sounds like you're doing.




I think I understand what your saying. Your basic claim is that what I have referred to as a moral dilemma is not in actual fact a moral dilemma. That's fine. But I think that if we really examine the implications of our societies allocation of resources you would find some ground for calling the example I provided a moral dilemma.

Let's conduct a little thought experiment.

let's imagine that I am standing in front of someone who is dying of AID's. And let's say that I have a miracle cure for AID's in my hand in the form of a liquid that one can drink. And let's say that I tip that liquid down the drain. Is my use of resources i.e.. the miracle cure, justified?

After all it was my private property, so there really isn't a moral dilemma, correct?

I would argue that this does constitute a moral dilemma. So, what is the difference between someone squandering their resources to the detriment of the sick in the above example and the example provided in the OP. Really it's just a matter of proximity. There is also the issue of the actual effectiveness of a cure for AID's which reality could not constitute a miracle cure. But essentially these are both immoral acts.


What do you think?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23768992 - 10/25/16 04:51 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

redgreenvines I would also like to hear your opinion of the above thought experiment.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23769079 - 10/25/16 06:29 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

hi, this thought experiment or charade introduces the idea of waste which is a different moral dilemma. it also assumes private persons having personal arbitrary dispensation over a public resource with no recourse (the impunity to cruelly discard a systematically formulated cure in front of a diseased person who needs to ingest it).

the native american healing circle would help with this type of behavior.

OK OK let us assume it were not a public resource that the person somehow inherited a stash of AIDS medicine (not a real situation) then I doubt they would have it in their pocket, in their, kitchen, or in their house - it would need to be in the lab that they inherited, and the lab, for it to exist, would be governed by ethical inspections etc.
So
the owner of this lab would be supervised by regulations.
So when might they discard some medicine or all the medicine they had inherited in this lab? and would they have the right to destroy their asset by whim?
I think they do not have the right to destroy their inheritance if it is publicly regulated. the inheritance transfers the profit and the duty of the asset.

I hope that helps.
I don't really like thought experiments of this nature, but it might help to clarify that you can inherit or own things that are free of public obligation such as "Money" and you could also inherit things that are not free of obligation such as "the cure for aids in a corporation that has the lab in which the aids cure is prepared and stored".

aside from that, the dilemma of holding back the  crowds clamoring around  christ who could cure anything just by being the son of god is a thing of dreams.
people are not that magic, but were they so magically enabled that they could heal all ills then probably they would radiate health like a star.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: blingbling]
    #23771603 - 10/25/16 09:54 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
Your basic claim is that what I have referred to as a moral dilemma is not in actual fact a moral dilemma. That's fine. But I think that if we really examine the implications of our societies allocation of resources you would find some ground for calling the example I provided a moral dilemma.

Let's conduct a little thought experiment.

let's imagine that I am standing in front of someone who is dying of AID's. And let's say that I have a miracle cure for AID's in my hand in the form of a liquid that one can drink. And let's say that I tip that liquid down the drain. Is my use of resources i.e.. the miracle cure, justified?

After all it was my private property, so there really isn't a moral dilemma, correct?

I would argue that this does constitute a moral dilemma. So, what is the difference between someone squandering their resources to the detriment of the sick in the above example and the example provided in the OP. Really it's just a matter of proximity. There is also the issue of the actual effectiveness of a cure for AID's which reality could not constitute a miracle cure. But essentially these are both immoral acts.


What do you think?




Wow, you really don't understand what I'm saying but you think you do, and just keep pounding your point.


--------------------
full blown human


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Supply, Demand & Morality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23771786 - 10/25/16 10:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
this thought experiment or charade introduces the idea of waste which is a different moral dilemma.





My argument is that resources spent on research for male pattern baldness is basically wasted resources considering the other applications that these resources could be used for, and that the system of supply and demand allows these resources to be squandered.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,765 13 01/24/05 10:34 AM
by shroomydan
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,852 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )
mrfreedom 5,078 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* Morality Lizard_King 937 13 01/01/05 10:32 PM
by LunarEclipse
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,845 31 06/14/03 10:42 AM
by NewToTrippin
* Matrix Reloaded True Meaning/ Transcript of Neo/Architect
( 1 2 3 all )
HagbardCeline 7,009 45 04/17/12 12:47 AM
by Buster_Brown
* A decision, morality. nakors_junk_bag 611 15 12/14/05 03:14 PM
by leery11
* There is a limited amount of energy.. get yours while supplies last
( 1 2 all )
Mixomatosis 2,094 23 01/12/05 01:43 AM
by Zekebomb

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,282 topic views. 1 members, 21 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.