0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 15:53:24Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness. There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness. There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.How do you come to that conclusion?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2021 00:00:31 Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness. There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.How do you come to that conclusion? I would like to answer that question but first can I ask is the end result of the standard to have a newtopias world.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2021 06:40:32Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow. So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal. The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
However, we cannot simply dismiss ideas that are non-rational as a whole. The great David Hume famously realised this in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. This quotation is worth showing in full (if only to have an excuse to relish in the man’s writing).QuoteIt appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.
It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)
What do you mean by newtopias world?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2021 10:05:34What do you mean by newtopias world?I believe that the meaning of newtopias is a world that is self sufficient and rid of unnecessary complications.
There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
Well, I guess that's what a universal terminal goal lead us to.And what do you mean by this?
Ok, big story to come. Well first to explain why there are wealthy people.
So to balance out this difference we must pay the manufacturer the same wage as the poorer man and the rich that have gained their wealth due to being overpaid must give back the money that they were overpaid and their inheritance that came from the same circumstances must be paid back.
Is it possible for a society to consist of poor people only, with no single wealthy one?
How to determine if someone is being overpaid?A baker can produce 100 bread a day. Another baker can produce 1000 a day. Their bread has same specifications. Should they have the same income?A billionaire makes money by polluting the environment. Another billionaire makes money by reducing environmental pollution. Should they be treated the same?
The baker needs to sell a set number of his product and there needs to be a limit set to prevent unfair trade.
As for pollution there must be non in order to achieve the effectiveness of the moral standard.
Bret Weinstein and Zuby discuss whether or not income inequality and wealth inequality are a problem in the modern Western world, and if so, to what extent.
the difference between wealth inequality and opportunity inequality.Also active efforts from big business to kill the competitors by selling at loss and hoping to gain more profit when they achieve market monopoly.
At what point did all these Good Things turn into a moral disgrace, and how can we prevent it?
At a personal level, if you had created a work of art, say a book or a painting, would you be happy if I copied it and sold mine as an original? Or if I flagrantly impersonated you for gain? Copyright, registered designs and trademarks protect the originator from fraud.
It's very difficult to legislate against a presumed intent. A startup sells at a loss to establish a name in the market. A major retailer sells surplus at a loss to clear a warehouse or correct overordering of time-limited stock. At what point is this unfair? Was EU "intervention buying" and denaturing of Italian wine to maintain market prices morally justified?