I agree to this, this is barely a kind of "ethical" question. I think the good people not ready to get a vaccine should avoid getting infected for own egoistical reasons. Getting that germ is no walk in the park. That should be reason enough not to go hugging galore.This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. Many countries have not implemented any sort of vaccine passport, precisely because it is in stark contradiction with forced medical procedures, of which it is a foundation of modern medical ethics not to do, so much so that it is put into laws that are very difficult to change, essentially constitutional (and many medical ethecists say shouldn't be changed).
And domestic vaccine passports are not the same thing as needing a vaccine to travel to a different country (where you are a guest and are not "forced" to go to) nor for participation in a relatively minor set of professions (you are not "forced" to have that profession).
Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure by making life practically impossible without it, is obviously a controversial thing in medical ethics. Nazi's thought they were "improving society" too; and, that institutions can go disastrously wrong (if not today, then maybe tomorrow) is the foundation of the moratorium on forced medical procedures in favour of "informed-consent" based medicine. — boethius
Well I feel like that covers only a small range of people, those who proscribe things that they themselves wouldn't have to do because they are shielded by money in one way or another.
Global warming is like a guest at a dinner party who embarrasses everyone, doesn't respect the rules of polite conversation, mentions the elephant in the room etc.
We could spend trillions on geo-engineering but we don't. We don't because rich people have all the money and states work for them. The logical conclusion is to get rid of rich people, but that's awkward because for many decades rich people have made us believe that they are gods.
What to do in such situation? — Jingo7
If someone who do not commute tell other people how to commute, that is not necessarily a good thing. I'm not saying you do, but that is a possibility in discussions like this. A lot of people do, for instance blame "capitalism" for causing problem when they themselves get the pleasure of not having to do a daytime job thanks to a social position guaranteed by some grandparent who made money enough to let relatives become scientists, artists or musicians, having the cultural capital to do that. One has to be very careful in discussions like this, not to talk about what "we" have to do when it is in fact "they" who will pay the price. You didnt, which is good.Public transport. — Jingo7
What is Mass-transit?The solution is planetary-scale geo-engineering, all other solutions are moot at this point.
I don't think people have understood yet the full implications of golbal warming and the response this will require.
On the other hand at a practical level it seems incredibly easy. Just direct, say, 3 trillion dollars every year toward geo-engineering and research, as well as producing good policy, mass-transit etc. — Jingo7
A northern european country governed by social democrats long time. Majority very poor 1900, a slow revolution that made equality around say 1970 very strong. Strong focus on personal merit, big trust in institutions. Good people working. Last years, global havoc, big immigration followed with high criminality. Lower class non-immigrants badly affected by immigration, upper class progressives happy "having saved the little man". The only conservatives - immigrants from muslim countries. Of course, absolute majority of immigrants good people. But havoc in a classroom is not caused by the majority being chaos kids.↪Ansiktsburk conservative weak but nationalism strong... interesting — deleteduserax
Well, where I come from, we´ve had frog eaters and black haired guys ruling us blondies for centuries...white supremacy über alles! — 180 Proof
Some claim that free will precludes a speaker being held responsible for listeners' actions. — creativesoul
If one simlpy likes living, going to ones not-so-fantastic job, do whats needed in the family and then just chill, driving ones wife half crazy by saying no to all fany plans for the future, does that qualify a guy to the ranks of the soft nihilists?The soft nihilist says there are no transcendent values, no external source of meaning, nothing. I am free to invent myself. This could be considered exciting. — Tom Storm
When you just observe the beauty of the latest week's beautiful scandinavian sunrises and sunsets, you get pretty ecstatic in the progress. Or if you listen to certain parts of "Down Down" with Quo. What does saving the world really add?I do agree that it is possible to be ecstatic as a nihilist. However, I believe that it is complicated because for some the nihilism leads to suicidal despair. Some people with despair over lack of meaning in life do present to mental health services, looking for possible interventions. We could ask to what extent is despair a mental health problem? — Jack Cummins
Values and life goals are pretty much the reasons why anyone is alive at all.
Life is not a joyride, it's hell unless you're in the developed world. — Darkneos
You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a — Jack Cummins
You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a job and feel very uncertain about my own future. So, I don't feel that I am writing from the perspective of advantage. I also think that many of the categories between working and middle class have broken down. Also, academic qualifications may not count for that much nowadays.
So, my whole discussion of prejudice must be seen in the context of a rapidly changing world and of changing values. We may be moving into a world in which yesterday's prejudices may be receding and a different set of new biases and inequalities surfacing. Therefore, my consideration, which was stressed in the opening of the thread, is not simply about seeing prejudices 'out there's in the world but about the whole way in which we think ,form and hold on to preconceived ideas about people. I see us being in this altogether, despite our often lonely struggles, and the only solution I see behind it all is a general need for compassion. — Jack Cummins
It´s very easy for people from a academical, semi posh background to be theoretical "world savers", typically, not suffering from the consequences. While blue and white collar people gets heavily affected.I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am interested in discussing prejudice and I don't consider my background as being 'snug' or'posh'. I would argue that that the striving to overcome prejudice goes beyond being a progressive idea and is central to any genuine concern about human beings. — Jack Cummins
That need to be discussed heavily. Women having suffrage has not only influenced society in positive ways. Spoiling of kids have become institutional and has lead to the development of hailing of low effort and results. The typical academic woman will go to extreme measures to perform well herself (at work, at home, with friends) but will spoil her own kids severely, making them "snowflakes" if the husband do not put some sense in the kids. She will further push for "weaker people", not requiring any personal responsibility from poorer people, refugees, people in minorities or whatever.What about toxic femininity... — Hanover
taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.
not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.
imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.
ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.
and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac
But, this Christian obsession is annoying and plainly wrong - I can't believe that someone who usually is so determined to get to the bedrock of human understanding is stuck in this shallow paradigm. The Logos idea is not even Christian. It was certainly around in 5 century BC with Heraclitus and who knows how much earlier. The entire Christian creed is derivative. — yebiga
Do I recognise that... Live in a community where both male and female mostly are academics... Me and missus have two great children(now in university age), but boy did she go on about having a third in the beginning of the millenia. All the neighbour women managed to wring a third(and some fourth) out of their husbands but I remained steadfast. Having neighbour gettogethers, the neighbour ladies even tried to convince me, and there were evil schemes laid out...The birthrate has a double peak: women in middle management positions and semi-routine occupations are by far the largest contributors to the birthrate. The former will typically be in good, reliable, twin-income households (in couples in which only one person works, it is more likely the worker is male here; likewise the vast majority of couples contributing to the birthrate are heterosexual). — Kenosha Kid
A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism. — Kenosha Kid
Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now. — Kenosha Kid
Being from at poor/working class family, grown up in a no-go area until 8yo, poor on all my grandparents sides back to the 17th century - What my ancestor and all my friends(i never made friends with the badasses) strived for was Equal Opportunity. And of course a stable state where institutions protected one from opressors of high and low type.Which is what the original left, the true left, stands for -- liberty and equality for all -- and what the original right, the true right, is against. — Pfhorrest
And I believe this is aided more by great literature (and music and art study and practice, meditation and psychedelics) than by philosophy. Both are desirable though; sharpening of the critical faculties and cultivation of the affections. However one can live a good life, ethically speaking; while holding central beliefs that from a philosophical point of view, are absurd, just as one can have the sharpest critical intellect, hold few absurd beliefs, and yet be a total arsehole. — Janus
Literature, employing metaphor, parable and profoundly affective depictions of human life, is most effective for this; much more effective than philosophy. That's probably why there is a Nobel prize for literature and not for philosophy. Philosophy is limited to exposing and correcting errors of reasoning and creating schematic worldviews, with the former function being more useful in my opinion. (Although the latter is not without artistic interest). That's my two cents anyway. — Janus