Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
In Italy you can't arrest someone for stealing if they needed to eat (if what they stole was food.)
In psychology studies, looking at the "why" instead of the action is a sign of psychopathy.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
and I'm personally against things like Affirmative Action, because I know what they were trying to do, but unfortunately it's one of those things that on paper is good but in actuality it's horrible. People are people, and it should be based on qualifications, not the race of the person or demographic metrics to meet.
Please explain on paper how it's good?
On paper it is supposed to help ensure that everyone gets a fair shot by rewarding companies for hiring minorities, and maintaining a certain percentage of minorities. So I see what they were trying to do. But it's horrible, and broken, and needs to go away.
how does this ensure everyone gets a fair shot? If you're forced to hire % of specific minorities, etc, that's anything but fair.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
and I'm personally against things like Affirmative Action, because I know what they were trying to do, but unfortunately it's one of those things that on paper is good but in actuality it's horrible. People are people, and it should be based on qualifications, not the race of the person or demographic metrics to meet.
Please explain on paper how it's good?
On paper it is supposed to help ensure that everyone gets a fair shot by rewarding companies for hiring minorities, and maintaining a certain percentage of minorities. So I see what they were trying to do. But it's horrible, and broken, and needs to go away.
On paper it's racist and sexist. On paper it might actually look more evil than in real life!
exactly.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
and I'm personally against things like Affirmative Action, because I know what they were trying to do, but unfortunately it's one of those things that on paper is good but in actuality it's horrible. People are people, and it should be based on qualifications, not the race of the person or demographic metrics to meet.
Please explain on paper how it's good?
On paper it is supposed to help ensure that everyone gets a fair shot by rewarding companies for hiring minorities, and maintaining a certain percentage of minorities. So I see what they were trying to do. But it's horrible, and broken, and needs to go away.
how does this ensure everyone gets a fair shot? If you're forced to hire % of specific minorities, etc, that's anything but fair.
It doesn't. It just feeds the "everything is a metric" mentality, and I hate that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
In Italy you can't arrest someone for stealing if they needed to eat (if what they stole was food.)
In psychology studies, looking at the "why" instead of the action is a sign of psychopathy.
That's unusual, because if you don't look at the why, you lack context, and it distorts the reality.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
In Italy you can't arrest someone for stealing if they needed to eat (if what they stole was food.)
In psychology studies, looking at the "why" instead of the action is a sign of psychopathy.
That's unusual, because if you don't look at the why, you lack context, and it distorts the reality.
At least the perception.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
I respect the fact that everyone thinks they are right the majority of the time. It's kind of part of human nature. The problem as I see it is too few people are open to hearing the opinions of a contradictory viewpoint. My brother-in-law is a very intelligent person, but his weakness is assuming that because he is intelligent his viewpoint must be correct. In ethics, there are always many strong principles and you can absolutely justify each of them strongly even though they are at odds with each other. I try to remember that in my day to day.
I always respect that others may have viewpoints different from me. However, if I ask someone to defend their opinion on something, and becomes a personal attack against me for disagreeing with them, then I will not tolerate that. I have friends on the whole range of political viewpoints, sexuality, etc. As long as we can have that mutual respect for each other, that even if we don't agree, we still show that, I'm fine. I also get really peeved by people who assume that because I'm younger, that I somehow "lack life experience" or "just don't get it". That and the skewed viewpoint that people of my generation are inherently lazy both grind my gears...
In the best scenario where you both respect each others thought process but arrive at different conclusions it's very easy to have mutual respect. It's when you consider your thought process to be accurate and concise while theirs is mixed up and inaccurate that the theory is really tested.
If a good person can do wrong and a bad person can do right then we are only ever judging the actions not the person.
I disagree with the whole "judge the actions, not the person" because I was fed that growing up, and it's bullshit. A person is defined by their actions. I know what they're trying to say is that good people can do bad things, and vice versa. But while the idea is novel, one bad action by a good person doesn't make them a bad person, as a rule. It's more about being able to have objective, civil debates, and if you still don't agree at the end, remaining polite, pleasant and respectful of each other.
The basic premise behind this is "I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone". We've all done right and wrong in our lives. If you trust the person to learn from their mistakes then keep them in your life. If you don't trust them to learn from their mistakes then don't keep them in your life. I think the majority of the judgments we make are horribly inaccurate to begin with considering we lack perspective as we are not the people we are judging.
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
But in that case is the action wrong? If someone had to steal to eat to survive, what about soup kitchens/food banks? What about friends/family? There are circumstances behind it all, and this is also why I don't judge actions, I judge motives. To be honest, if I knew someone had killed someone for some reason, and the motive was to protect someone they cared about, the action might be "wrong" but the motive wasn't. That's why I say you can't judge the action and not the person. It's also about not taking things at face value.
The act of stealing is wrong in that you are taking something you did not earn from someone who did against their will. That is wrong in principle.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
I respect the fact that everyone thinks they are right the majority of the time. It's kind of part of human nature. The problem as I see it is too few people are open to hearing the opinions of a contradictory viewpoint. My brother-in-law is a very intelligent person, but his weakness is assuming that because he is intelligent his viewpoint must be correct. In ethics, there are always many strong principles and you can absolutely justify each of them strongly even though they are at odds with each other. I try to remember that in my day to day.
I always respect that others may have viewpoints different from me. However, if I ask someone to defend their opinion on something, and becomes a personal attack against me for disagreeing with them, then I will not tolerate that. I have friends on the whole range of political viewpoints, sexuality, etc. As long as we can have that mutual respect for each other, that even if we don't agree, we still show that, I'm fine. I also get really peeved by people who assume that because I'm younger, that I somehow "lack life experience" or "just don't get it". That and the skewed viewpoint that people of my generation are inherently lazy both grind my gears...
In the best scenario where you both respect each others thought process but arrive at different conclusions it's very easy to have mutual respect. It's when you consider your thought process to be accurate and concise while theirs is mixed up and inaccurate that the theory is really tested.
If a good person can do wrong and a bad person can do right then we are only ever judging the actions not the person.
I disagree with the whole "judge the actions, not the person" because I was fed that growing up, and it's bullshit. A person is defined by their actions. I know what they're trying to say is that good people can do bad things, and vice versa. But while the idea is novel, one bad action by a good person doesn't make them a bad person, as a rule. It's more about being able to have objective, civil debates, and if you still don't agree at the end, remaining polite, pleasant and respectful of each other.
The basic premise behind this is "I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone". We've all done right and wrong in our lives. If you trust the person to learn from their mistakes then keep them in your life. If you don't trust them to learn from their mistakes then don't keep them in your life. I think the majority of the judgments we make are horribly inaccurate to begin with considering we lack perspective as we are not the people we are judging.
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
But in that case is the action wrong? If someone had to steal to eat to survive, what about soup kitchens/food banks? What about friends/family? There are circumstances behind it all, and this is also why I don't judge actions, I judge motives. To be honest, if I knew someone had killed someone for some reason, and the motive was to protect someone they cared about, the action might be "wrong" but the motive wasn't. That's why I say you can't judge the action and not the person. It's also about not taking things at face value.
The act of stealing is wrong in that you are taking something you did not earn from someone who did against their will. That is wrong in principle.
The problem is that the world isn't black and white. It's about a million shades of grey, and it's knowing how to operate ethically in the grey that allows people to succeed. Everything has good and bad aspects. It's about weighing the options, and doing the best thing you can.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
I respect the fact that everyone thinks they are right the majority of the time. It's kind of part of human nature. The problem as I see it is too few people are open to hearing the opinions of a contradictory viewpoint. My brother-in-law is a very intelligent person, but his weakness is assuming that because he is intelligent his viewpoint must be correct. In ethics, there are always many strong principles and you can absolutely justify each of them strongly even though they are at odds with each other. I try to remember that in my day to day.
I always respect that others may have viewpoints different from me. However, if I ask someone to defend their opinion on something, and becomes a personal attack against me for disagreeing with them, then I will not tolerate that. I have friends on the whole range of political viewpoints, sexuality, etc. As long as we can have that mutual respect for each other, that even if we don't agree, we still show that, I'm fine. I also get really peeved by people who assume that because I'm younger, that I somehow "lack life experience" or "just don't get it". That and the skewed viewpoint that people of my generation are inherently lazy both grind my gears...
In the best scenario where you both respect each others thought process but arrive at different conclusions it's very easy to have mutual respect. It's when you consider your thought process to be accurate and concise while theirs is mixed up and inaccurate that the theory is really tested.
If a good person can do wrong and a bad person can do right then we are only ever judging the actions not the person.
I disagree with the whole "judge the actions, not the person" because I was fed that growing up, and it's bullshit. A person is defined by their actions. I know what they're trying to say is that good people can do bad things, and vice versa. But while the idea is novel, one bad action by a good person doesn't make them a bad person, as a rule. It's more about being able to have objective, civil debates, and if you still don't agree at the end, remaining polite, pleasant and respectful of each other.
The basic premise behind this is "I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone". We've all done right and wrong in our lives. If you trust the person to learn from their mistakes then keep them in your life. If you don't trust them to learn from their mistakes then don't keep them in your life. I think the majority of the judgments we make are horribly inaccurate to begin with considering we lack perspective as we are not the people we are judging.
A man stole something from someone. Stealing is bad. That man is bad. It's easy to arrive at this conclusion. The important part of it is why the man stole. Can any of us honestly say that if we were starving to death we wouldn't steal? I would. I would feel terrible about it, but I'd do it. Now we have a man who did something bad but is not himself a bad person. Judge the action not the person.
But in that case is the action wrong? If someone had to steal to eat to survive, what about soup kitchens/food banks? What about friends/family? There are circumstances behind it all, and this is also why I don't judge actions, I judge motives. To be honest, if I knew someone had killed someone for some reason, and the motive was to protect someone they cared about, the action might be "wrong" but the motive wasn't. That's why I say you can't judge the action and not the person. It's also about not taking things at face value.
The act of stealing is wrong in that you are taking something you did not earn from someone who did against their will. That is wrong in principle.
The problem is that the world isn't black and white. It's about a million shades of grey, and it's knowing how to operate ethically in the grey that allows people to succeed. Everything has good and bad aspects. It's about weighing the options, and doing the best thing you can.
Definitely.
My whole thing is, right and wrong are subjective. Let's say you have the choice to kill one person to save ten or kill ten to save one. A utilitarian would say kill the one to save ten because ten is more than one. Kantian theory would say that a person isn't only worth one, that one person may be the next president of the united states while the ten others will be drug addicts, rapists and murderers. An egoist would choose based on his own personal gain. Maybe that one person benefits the egoist in some way more than the other ten people do. A natural law theorist could say that murder is unnatural and therefore cannot be committed under any circumstance. A hedonist would choose whatever gave him the most pleasure. If he's a sadist, he'd choose the ten people for instance. There are a lot of ways to view everything. I agree we can only do the best that we can do, but what is considered to 'best' is subjective.
-
While not related - the kill 1 vs 10 reminds of me of something I think was quoted as coming from google - if we have to choose between killing grandma crossing the street or a family on the sidewalk, we've already failed.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
While not related - the kill 1 vs 10 reminds of me of something I think was quoted as coming from google - if we have to choose between killing grandma crossing the street or a family on the sidewalk, we've already failed.
Agreed. Just a thought experiment.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
While not related - the kill 1 vs 10 reminds of me of something I think was quoted as coming from google - if we have to choose between killing grandma crossing the street or a family on the sidewalk, we've already failed.
Agreed. Just a thought experiment.
Those are great. Mental exercises are fantastic!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
