Global capitalism has written off the human race

Post Reply New Topic

I believe Noah and his family had the last laugh.

No.


Refusing to consider ethics and morality in calculating a formula does not imply that a scientific study should or shouldn't be done. You are drawing a conclusion unrelated to the original point, which is that subjective factors remove the ability to evaluate an issue scientifically.

If economics defines a transaction as an exchange between two parties at an agreed upon price and we are counting transactions, I couldn't care less how you feel about the transactions or whether they were morally correct. If my accountant came to me and told me I shouldn't have spent money on something, I would fire him. The morality behind the transactions is unrelated to the ledger.


I'm not convinced that society needs to "keep order". I don't need protection from other individuals -- they leave me alone and I leave them alone. What I need protection from is society trying to act like my parent and disciplinarian.

The only thing it said is socialism is ruining our economy. Thanks for finally coming around! I hate socialism as well tom, man it stinks!

Basically what it is is socialism is everywhere and capitalism is just a part of the socialism. In reality, that's how countries are run.

Actually, no it wouldn't. He holds those views because he is morally deficient. That's not interesting. But it is worthy of my white-hot seething contempt.

You are judging me based on your morality. I have my own morality. What makes your morality superior to mine?

Haha. Explain what you mean by "own morality?"

Any system that treats human beings as a resource to be exploited will be inherently evil.

Humans are a resource just like everything else.

YAY!

Because my morality is based on a virtue other than selfishness. Which isn't actually a virtue.

I think it's damn selfish to forcefully take resources away from someone to give to someone else just to satisfy your conscience. Why don't you give your own money to charity instead of taking my money to give to charity?

On that note, would you like to compare charitable donations for 2013?

Well, I can't say for certain how it should play out, but in regard to the first act I think the North Koreans may be be onto something.

According to pure free-market capitalism, yes.

According to most humans, no.

I give plenty of money to charity. I'd bet I give as much or more by percentages as you do. And I plan to spend the rest of my life in service to my community.

My biggest beef with people like you (and you have already said you do not feel bound by a social contract) is that you think that it is alright to be bound by nothing, apparently.

Your rejection of the social contract, reveals your contempt for your fellow man and total misunderstanding of how civilization works.

I'm not gonna quote Edmond Burke here like I usually do....

BUT, I will say this. People who refuse to accept their moral duty to their fellowman DEMAND to be acted upon by force.

Honoring the social contract is the price you must pay. one way or another, for living in a civilized society.

If you really don't want to be bound by the social contract, do the decent thing and leave society.

Start your own Galt's Gulch on some little island somewhere, If you're REALLY so exceptional and worthy, the world will be BEGGING to rejoin you!

But if you aren't, your passing won't be marked, except by a conspicuous lack of nuisance.

What is your rationale for you answer?



How do you derive that it is possible and desirable to remove all subjective factors? Yes, you can be as objective in your analysis as possible but you're still coming at it from your own thoughts and own beliefs and sometimes these things can still have bias. Logic, science and objectivity is not 100%.

If your science experiment involves the harm and possible death of people then the science experiment is immoral. Of course morality and ethics does is not literally a part of the scientific method and science but it is something separate that has to be looked at as well in addition to the science experiment. You made a claim that one should factor out ethics and morality out of being scientific and I showed you where you are wrong on this. Think about it this way, if someone wanted to do experiments on you that led to your death would you desire this because someone says they have to be scientific? Can you put yourself in those person's shoes. You want an answer of "What makes your morality superior to mine?" The answer to this question that you asked is empathy meaning imagining what horrors a person will go through if a science experiment was done on a person that led to his or her death, pain and suffering? How would it feel to have your life snuffed out because someone believes in purely the scientific way and will factor out empathy. Any moral system that lacks empathy is a moral system that is inferior to any other.




Life isn't just about economics, transactions and what can be purchased. It is but one part of the entire equation. Life is more that that. Life is also about love, virtue, seeking truth, philosophy, reflection, romance. It is about laughter, struggle, over coming struggle. It is about doing what is right because it is right. Life is about enriching your soul and other people's soul. Life can't just be reduced to economics, cost, efficiency and industry. Everything to you is a commodity. This is the true religion of the USA and this is why our country including you has lost its soul.



This is the inherent trait of society is to keep order. Without order, what would there be? How would you keep criminals from committing crimes like murder and rape? You're a man of logic and science. How would you structure society? What is your ideal society? Do you believe in a society at all? Do you not believe in civilization because civilization has a bit of coercion to it to maintain a certain level of order?