0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's always good to appear magnanimous in victory, however many people you killed to get there.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:32:36Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.Taken for granted, feeling or emotion based actions, or instinctive actions, are usually better than just random actions. We don't just randomly stop breathing, or stop eating, or just jump off the cliff, or punch strangers in the face. But rational actions based on longer term goals and adequately accurate knowledge of causality can often give even better results.
Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.
Consistent standards can only be achieved through long term goals.
No. Just state your standards, make sure they aren't mutually contradictory, and stick to them.
On what other basis should you judge all men equally?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999).
In all walks of life, a good standard is one that can be widely adopted and makes people safe and happy. Some people are perverse, so the best we can hope for is to satisfy a majority.
What was once majority can turn into minority in some other time.
So there can be no universal standard
I'm not sure about Laplace/Sagan. The claims that the earth orbits the sun, or that all objects fall at the same rate under gravity, would be considered extraordinary at the time they were made, but they were supported by exactly the same, very ordinary, evidence as the current consensus.
certain behaviors are proscribed regardless of who does them.
The more information we have about how the world works can get us closer to the universal moral standard.
If a little kid shoots someone, we don't treat them like they're an adult.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2023 09:31:19The more information we have about how the world works can get us closer to the universal moral standard.Or Narnia, or Eldorado. Travelling in a straight line, or indeed along any path, doesn't imply the existence of a destination.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2023 09:46:11If a little kid shoots someone, we don't treat them like they're an adult.Why not? There's a reasonable presumption of ignorance but if there was a clear intent to do harm, what does it matter how old the perpetrator was?
An explanation of the Prisoner's Dilemma, Nash Equilibrium, and the Infinite Prisoner's Dilemma.
Ask the lawmakers.Perhaps, the reason is because children haven't had fully developed mental capacities to deal with all the complexity of the world they are living in. They are not yet independent, so their wrongdoing are more likely caused by the mistakes made by those who took care of them. The corrective and preventive actions are then more effective to be directed toward their parents.
Correction to what I say at 11:53 -- I was referring to Milgram's famous experiments in which people administered electroshocks to others when ordered so. It had nothing to do with prisons. The prison experiment was from Philip Zimbardo, not Milgram. Sorry about that. When we come together in groups we can be so much more than the sum of the parts. But sometimes groups are just much more stupid. Collective stupidity is the flipside of collective intelligence, and we see it a lot on social media. Why are groups sometimes collectively stupid and sometimes not? What can we do to be more intelligent in groups? In this video I explain the most important points. 00:00 Intro00:45 Emergent behaviour04:12 Collective intelligence07:58 Collective stupidity14:49 What can we do?