0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The answer to mass shootings is surely to note that the sole function of an automatic weapon is to kill people, so whenever anyone asks to buy such a weapon, he should be required to list and inform those he intends to kill.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics/gun-mass-shootings-politicians-poll/index.htmlAs Congress considers, again, the possibility of moving a package of gun control reforms, a number from a new CBS News/YouGov poll jumped out at me as evidence of why solving America's gun violence problem is so hard.It's this: 44% of Republicans said that mass shootings are something we have to accept as part of a free society. (A majority of Republicans -- 56% -- said mass shootings are something we can prevent and stop if we really tried.)That number is a striking departure from how the country as a whole views the issue. More than 7 in 10 Americans (72%) said that mass shootings could be prevented if we really tried, while just 28% said they were part of living in a free society.Consider what those Republicans are saying: There is no policy -- or cultural -- solution to the problem of mass shootings. Instead, it is a necessary evil of living in a free society.
This is a philosophy video lecture that compresses a course that normally takes 15 weeks into just one video. Or really, it only manages to condense half of that course into 22 minutes. What is the morally right thing to do? Is there some moral law that applies to everyone, or is morality relative in some way? And what’s so good about morality anyway? To answer these questions, we read Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Nozick, Singer, O’Neill and others. This is an introductory level philosophy course. Students do not need any prior experience with philosophy.For more of my videos: https://www.jeffreykaplan.org/youtube
The test we use in my medical research ethics committee is "would the man on the bus approve if we did it to him?". Clearly the answer depends on whether he is fit and healthy or at death's door, so the concept of true universality is meaningless.
https://twitter.com/evolutionofgods/status/1536201030601699328?t=iABtr52mgWblDcJwFQmMLA&s=03In dark ages people were best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.'
Suppose I could have prevented the birth of Pol Pot. Serious negative impact on one known conscious being, major benefit to everyone else. Moral or immoral?
Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?Contraception?Spaying a pet dog?
The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?
Veganism will win, but you're wrong about whyLoose workings for how many cows my dairy consumption will kill (for a reason unknown to me, this text didn't render on the video, sorry): Based on my current rate of dairy consumption (1 litre milk + 500g of cheese per week) I’ll consume another 15,600 litres of milk if I reach 82. The average cow produces 49,780 litres of milk throughout its life, and for every cow there is a culled bull and a child that’s taken away.Timestamps:00:00 Why Make it Easy?02:48 Can They Suffer?06:53 Unnecessary Harm16:02 An Arbitrary Definition19:34 Two Sovereign Masters27:58 Why Not Vegan?!
I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.
In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.
Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.