During the time of Covid there did appear to be a levelling out of wealth and poverty. This was interconnected with the way in which everyone was vulnerable to getting ill and economics as was known seemed to collapsing. At the time, I believed that it might usher in a new economics of equality.

However, in England the divide Is so much more than I have ever known, almost heading back to Victorian times. Families are being made homeless on a daily basis and more and more people are needing to resort to food banks. There is even a danger of the food banks collapsing. Of course, the situation of England is compounded by Brexit as well. Previously, many in the USA and other countries may have seen England as advantaged due to the NHS and the welfare state but this system is on the verge of collapsing. All policies and risk assessments are made in the light of this.

So much also may be going on behind the scenes of the news headlines throughout the world. If anything, there may be a fogging of risks or leaders not knowing what to do especially over ecology and climate change.

The inaccuracy of risk assessment is part of the problem and how measures are taken on the basis of information with inaccuracies.

In my experience dealing with medical and personal risk assessments, I have advised those seeking counsel to compare the negative outcomes of either of a (theoretical) binary choice are taken. That is, it is more enlightening to compare bad to worse than good to better.

Yes, I do remember that you have a medical background because you also know me as Jackdaydream. What you are saying about seeing bad to worse makes sense with regard to thinking of risks. It is about preparing for the worst possible scenarios. I was inclined to think that way when working in healthcare but found that a lot of people found that approach to be a little negative. But with many health scenarios, including mental health ones, often disasters often have roots which can be traced back but often are missed. The problem may be that often human beings prefer to be blind to potential problems, with some kind of optimism that things will turn out better as opposed to worse.

Oh hey, Jack. Merry Christmas!!

In my field, which has a zero tolerance of negative outcomes, guarding against the "worst" (and therefore accepting a possibility of "bad") gives folks psychological comfort and thus the wherewithal to do and accept things gladly that under ordinary circumstances they would not.

Some people, including those who break the law, do come out so well, while the cautious often do badly. So much in life does seem to be a gamble and it may be that intuition is a guiding factor in seeing beyond risk, towards positive manifestation in life.

Happy Christmas to you too!

It is hard to know how psychological comfort fits into risk assessment. It anything, what I saw in healthcare was often based on covering oneself legally. This is important, as even medical notes are legal documents . Nevertheless, the problem is that it can become an exercise in which inspections are elevated beyond all proportion. Often, inspections are crucial for funding of services. But, it can get in the way of the genuine science or art of risk assessment. That is what may end up becoming a tick boxes approach, as opposed to the emphasis on human life and death concerns.

It makes easier (and more ethical) when the patient's interest and attitude aligns with the best legal posture for the staff and the facility.

How about philosophy of badminton next? Or philosophy of fighting?

Philosophy is not the love of wisdom, philosophy is metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, and aeshetics.

So find laws where the punishment is X fine without jail time and so long as you're poised to make a greater reward than the fine, break the law, pay the fine, reap the profits. — Vaskane

:smile:

Philosophy is not the love of wisdom... — Lionino

Speaking for yourself, I presume?

Speaking for yourself, I presume? — wonderer1

Still upset that you made a clown of yourself in the other thread?

The Philosophy of badminton is play aggressively in doubles and for position in singles.

I am not sure where the philosophy of badminton fits into religion exactly. However, aggression in philosophy, like in sports may come into play in thinking. If anything, the human tendenct towards aggression, and competition as aspects of human motivation may be essential in understanding the nature of risk.

Differentiating these as quantifiable or qualitative factors may be an ongoing area of psychology and philosophy. The interplay of philosophical ideas and the aspects of human psychology may be an extremely important area for an understanding of potential consideration of the nature of risks in human and all aspects of life.