 | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Well, to the absolutest of my theory, yes. I have no grounds for assuming anyone else's intent, and have no basis for proof. But the point is that it usually does seem to work. That is, usually, I can judge someone's intent fairly well. But (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) I think competitive improvement requires the postulate of an informed, active consumer base, which does not seem descriptive of America today. Frankly, when I see ads for "Pumpernickel limestone shampoo - the tingle tells you it's better than (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Do you think morality is internal (only I can determine if I am moral), or external (you can determine if I am moral)? If external, then who defines morality? (...) I disagree. Only the druggist can determine if he has a moral obligation to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So?
|
|
I agree. If cost is no object, MIT is clearly in the top 5 in the world (along with CalTech)... (...) As long as you get what you neeeed... :-) (or is a stones reference dating me?) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) I think the issue Libertarians have with government regulation about standards, quality, and labels is not with intent. We're willing to grant, for the sake of argument, good intent(1). Our issue is just that they don't, by and large, actually (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
