 | | Re: So?
|
|
(...) I guess I should have learned by know that there is no such thing as a casual statement here. I did not mean to get into a big debate on this but I do agree that if cost is a factor then MIT is probably not quite what it is as when you take (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.loc.us.ma.bos, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Determining intent can only be inferential, not observational. This makes judging by intent inherently less impartial than judging by actions. (...) I do not trust myself to judge anyone's intent.(1) I am not omniscient, and I will never know (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I don't want to dwell on the morality topic, since it seems that it's being beaten into the ground. But I will say this: I think that the highest form of morality stems from compassion - the ability to experience the suffering of others as if it (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Yep. What it really means is I can't judge you. Only you can judge you. I can do my darndest to try, and usually, in our society, we can do a pretty good job of determining someone else's intent. We don't always get the details right, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way we determine morality. See below. (...) How can I, or you, or anyone, accurately judge someone's intent? It is impossible to empirically determine intent. Actions can be observed, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Well, I think my view on it is that it's required in order to be moral... We don't 'require' people to be moral, but if they're not, then people like me call them jerks. They're not unjust, per se; they are certainly within their rights, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) There is a difference between holding and even publicising an opinion that the druggist is a slug, and using force to require him to sell the drug. There is nothing wrong with that opinion even being wrong (in the examples Larry stated of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Even you are a little squeamish about the druggist's behaviour: "If I were he I'd work out a payment plan blah blah blah" And yet you cannot find anything morally wrong in it, either. It all works out logically (why he is justified to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Not exactly. More like it IS everything else. Any right I recognise, ultimately, is a property right or can be reduced to one. (...) Well, here we go round the mulberry bush again, :-) but as I stated in the past, I don't accept the above as a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I think what this is really about is how highly do you rate property rights. Larry seems to be arguing that the right to property superceeds everything else. It's impossible to say what's right in this hypothetical situation, since so much depends (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) The druggist is clearly and willfully taking action that is harmful to a human life. If you consider that immoral, then it is immoral. His motivations do not matter. Even if he is (under his moral code) preventing a greater evil (for example, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) No, it was to increase the level of information in the market place. I WANT sellers to dig out rare sets, and I want buyers to buy them. If they are blowing their money on stuff they can get at retail, they're not spending their money on rare (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm... Important to Hienz's claim on the drug? No. They're not. Hienz has no claim to the drug if he hasn't acquired it from the druggist in some manner (trading/selling/performing services/etc.. not threats or beatings, etc., though) Is it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) As with all these little morality puzzles, we don't have enough facts to conclude that. For all we know, Heinz skipped buying health insurance to cover the drug because he wanted to go bowling, or because he needed the money to pay his last (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Neither more nor less, because they are not actually different things. Right to life and right to property are the same thing. ALL rights are property rights in my schema. The "right to life" as I see it is my right to dispose of my life as I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations for not selling are not important. (...) Why? (...) Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural disaster, and several people are left in a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) This is why Libertarianism breaks down because mean people suck. Not all people are good. If *everyone* had a good heart, people would be able to respect property rights AND each other's needs as well. But as it is, a heartless Bunghole is (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) So in your schema, right to property is more important than right to life. (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Old debates die hard :) (...) I certainly agree here. Heinz doesn't appear to me to have any right to the drug; and neither does his wife. Rights don't really seem to dictate proper ownership in this case other than the druggist. After all, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) [2] (...) Agreed. No moral situation here. (possibly an ethical one, but that's a different debate, and this case doesn't have enough information to make an ethical judgement). However, I'm fairly certain I can make a good case for the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
