The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread IX

[SS-18 ICBM]

Because words can have different meanings.

 

[say1988]

A colonial Empire is different from a traditional Empire (in the sense of the HRE). Empire can have many different meanings, from the more general to the more specific (having a titular emperor as head of state).
And from 1876-1947 the British monarch was an Emperor.

 

[Atticus]

However, I think I see an escape from arbitrariness because rules that a person says applies to him, however arbitrary, have his consent to apply to him. Therefore their arbitrariness doesn't matter, unlike if we were to claim them as universal moral rules based on personal, subjective opinion ('intuition').

I can live with moral relativism (and am relativist of a sort myself). But do you also accept the consequences this will have: That murdering is not wrong if the murderer hasn't consented to the rule? That infants are free prey for everyone because they can't consent to anything?

If the moral obligation really comes from giving consent, then the possible future giving consent is irrelevant, and to tell the truth, I believe you added it so that kids were included, and this theory would conform to your moral intuition.

Wouldn't one consequence be also that eating cows is just as wrong as eating humans? Both depending on whether the eater has accepted the rule "Do not eat cows/humans".

(I think a bit same way myself, but for the moment am more interested to hear how you answer to this).

No credible theory of morality can rely on moral intuition as a guide. When devising a theory, one cannot start out with a list of conclusions and find premises to match. One starts out with premises and reaches conclusions. If no premise seems justifiable, then you're stuck there.

Moral intuition predates moral theories, and for large part, I think, the latter tries to explicate the former. The validity of moral theory is measured by moral intuition: A gives his theory, B says: "But this theory would allow eating babies, so it's flawed". If moral intuition weren't the starting point, why build moral theory at all?


If mods are going to separate this as an independent thread, please formulate title to be about ground of morals rather than eating cows. Latter types of titles tend to attract lower quality of responses.

 

[really]

... Just 5%?

How long would that take you to get drunk, 15 beers?

Cans are usually 500ml over here.

 

[Brighteye]

I can live with moral relativism (and am relativist of a sort myself). But do you also accept the consequences this will have: That murdering is not wrong if the murderer hasn't consented to the rule? That infants are free prey for everyone because they can't consent to anything?

For murdering, yes, I do. I also think, of course, that since the killer has not consented to any rules, then we can kill him freely too.
For children, I'd consider them property of their parents and deserving of rights as a consequence. I'd like to see a society in which childcare was much more socialised, and children would also be said to be partly property of society, with certain limitations on how the parents treat them as a consequence.

If the moral obligation really comes from giving consent, then the possible future giving consent is irrelevant, and to tell the truth, I believe you added it so that kids were included, and this theory would conform to your moral intuition.

You got me, but more to conform to your intuition than my own.

Wouldn't one consequence be also that eating cows is just as wrong as eating humans? Both depending on whether the eater has accepted the rule "Do not eat cows/humans".

See, I think there's a slight difference here. I'm thinking of a society in which people say 'we won't do these things to each other', and thereby the agreement must be mutual, but you're right that a person can consent to 'not killing cows' as a rule to follow. I just don't see the point since consent, barring any universal morality, will only be given on the basis of mutual benefit, and the cow is not doing anything in return.

Moral intuition predates moral theories, and for large part, I think, the latter tries to explicate the former. The validity of moral theory is measured by moral intuition: A gives his theory, B says: "But this theory would allow eating babies, so it's flawed". If moral intuition weren't the starting point, why build moral theory at all?

You're describing how things are done, and giving historical reasons. That's entirely irrelevant to the point that this is a bad way to do things. Without moral intuition, we wouldn't have been social enough animals to form complex societies and develop language and culture the way we have.
Now that we can think entirely rationally about things, it seems a bit perverse to discard this ability in favour of historical precedent.

 

[Yared]

Me: 29
Her: 21

Is the age gap too big?

No. But it'd be different if it was 1 and 9, or 11 and 19.

Just be careful. You're probably going to be the guy making the money, while she's studying in university or working at a low-wage job.

If a nation with a King is a Kingdom, a Emporer an Empire.. why was it the British Empire?

Queen Victoria was the first Empress of India.

 

[Synobun]

Ermm I had the impression that 5% was the average % of alcohol in Beer. And now it takes less.

All the beer I've taken was 8-9%

 

[Heretic_Cata]

All the beer I've taken was 8-9%

Homemade ? I've never seen that kind of beer being sold.
But if you're from the american continent, you prolly drank 0.8 - 0.9% beer.

 

[holy king]

sounds strange indeed. normal beer has around 5, strong beer around 12.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Age/2+7 rule of thumb says it is not ok if she just turned 21, but if she is at least 21 years and 6 months old it is fine. If you wait one year it would be fine anyway.

 

[really]

The Age/2+7 rule of thumb says it is not ok if she just turned 21, but if she is at least 21 years and 6 months old it is fine. If you wait one year it would be fine anyway.

Nope i'm breaking that rule.

I'll give it a go anyways - what's the harm.

 

[Karalysia]

As long as its age of consent +/- 2

 

[bhsup]

The Age/2+7 rule of thumb says it is not ok if she just turned 21, but if she is at least 21 years and 6 months old it is fine. If you wait one year it would be fine anyway.

That really needs to be modified after you're 23-24 years old to "Age * 75%". A forty year old guy has no business fooling around with some 20-something tart.

 

[GinandTonic]

All the beer I've taken was 8-9%

% proof (us standard) is circa 1/2 % alcohol (ABV). 57.15% vis alcohol by volume to be exact. Proof coming from the archaic practice of a substantial portion of a sailors wage being paid in rum. Proof being the test of the purity of the rum, where gunpowder soaked in the rum will still fire.

So when the sailors complained the rum had been watered, gunpowder was soaked in it and ignited providing the "proof".

The upshot of which is that the american 8% proof is 4.2% ABV. Whereas anyone else's 8% ABV, well, you'd better not have anything important to achieve afterwards.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Homemade ? I've never seen that kind of beer being sold.
But if you're from the american continent, you prolly drank 0.8 - 0.9% beer.

.8 -.9% is whats commonly sold as non-alcoholic here.

Ive had everything from 4% to 10% in beer.

 

[GinandTonic]

.8 -.9% is whats commonly sold as non-alcoholic here.

Ive had everything from 4% to 10% in beer.

4% - 10% proof or abv?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Either as Ive had up to 10% abv

 

[Yared]

It is possible to burn a cd on a dvd reader right?

 

[holy king]

no. you mean dvd burner? then, yes.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Question: In school we were talking about the United Nations criminal justice thing. When the United Nations finds an individual person guilty, where is the jail?