I was hoping Pete wouldn't find out about that but you had to open your mouth, didn't ya? :frown: You love a good bit of name-calling too, Paul. You're not just a one-trick pony, are you? :wink: Thanks, that really helps. Allow me to be direct in turn. I think you do precisely the things you accuse others of - sniping and being judgemental, for example. And this inverse snobbery over "intellectualism" - yikes. When someone comes up with words or phrases or arguments that I am unfamiliar with, I'm grateful for the education. It's hardly New Scientist or The Economist level discussions going on here, it's simply shooting the shit with other biking enthusiasts. My eyes may glaze over at times over some of the technical stuff, be it bike or non-bike related, I may even shrug my shoulders at some of the elitist comments I've read here (about all sorts of things). The main thing about this forum though - it's not all about me. It really helps to remember that; it could help you have a better time here, too. For all that, I know you're a decent bloke and I have no real problem with what you say on the forums or how you say it. Even when you call me a tosser :smile: It's all part of the banter and debate that you have said you're OK with.
Great to hear that you love a good debate, Bradders, something we agree on. So don't be shy, tell us your what your views are on the topics this thread is about (look at post #1). I promise to read them with attention and respond with courtesy. I do not promise to agree with you. Rather, I promise to point out the flaws in what you say, if I can find any. These sort of issues do not have a single right answer, just a cloud of possible answers all of which have flaws. That's what makes them interesting. Over to you, then.
Don't sell yourself short, Pete. It's also Religion for Dummies, Science for Dummies and Politics for Dummies, as well. Sometimes, it's even Tax Disk Location for Dummies. We cater to all types of dummies here. :biggrin:
That depends what you mean by "higher ethics" and "there are no ethics involved here". You seem to be suggesting that there could be some basis for ethics which is not based in the practical world of psychology, anthropology, etc. So where does ethics come from, if not the real world? From the supernatural? From a total abstraction? If you don't think ethics is game strategy, what is it? Do you not think ethics is susceptible to scientific analysis at all? I'd be glad of some clarification, Glidd.
Philosophy Forums Philosophy Discussion Forums Forum for European Philosophy - Forum for European Philosophy - Research - European Institute - Home Something for every one here fellas Pete...I love nothing better than a good strong sometimes heated debate over a pint where topics, attitudes and behaviours are roundly put to rights. But the pint bit is critical for actions to take place as is keeping it non value-based; its not what someone is but what someone does which should be targeted. Alas often lacking in debates here, hence I can't be bothered as I once was
I expect we all know there are forums out there where professional philosophers discuss philosophy, forums where professional economists discuss economics, and forums where professional podiatrists discuss feet. These are not all that interesting for the non-professional though. Personally I like to elicit opinions from all manner of people; maybe I can learn from them, or maybe they can learn from me. If as you say you cannot be bothered to debate here, that's fine too. Good luck to you (if you believe in luck) and blessings be upon you (if you believe in religion).
Quite. Wouldn't life be great if people could be relied on to tell the truth, or at least if telling lies was about as common and as popular as murder? People like Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi who told truth to power were persecuted unspeakably for decades; still some people like that eventually gain great legitimacy and authority - if they survive at all.
not something I am qualified to comment on - sorry I'm sure someone else will be along soon who is more experienced
LOL This thought did cross my mind also. It is question that really has no answer, or an infinite number of answers, and is designed to provoke mass debate with no real conclusion.
On the theme of masturbation, a mate of mine would describe the Ducati/Audi styling exercise on another thread as "Corporate wanking"
Absolutely. Most have their fingernails pulled out in a darkened cell and are disappeared. For every Mandela with an iron constitution to survive the ordeal, how many don't? I have utmost admiration for dissidents, but doubt I'd have the moral or physical courage to join them. All is transitory - and your life is the most transitory of all.
Very good questions, Pete. I suppose I feel that ethics are the rules that handicap your sphere of action in the pursuit of self-interest. Cheating people and betraying their trust generally belittles you as a person. Ethics are certainly not religion-based, but they may well be anthropological - indeed clearly are as what passes for acceptable behaviour in some cultures clearly isn't in others, viz polygamy. Could they be psychological? Surely they are too. Why do many mass-murders then commit suicide if they were so at ease with what they have just done? Game theory is surely about how to make a decision to get the best possible outcome for the player. Ethics would imply that you are quite prepared to lose games if to win them means indulging in actions you find unacceptable. For example, one of the biggest and certainly best playing employers in these parts is Philip Morris. But I would never work for them as I feel it is unethical to spend my life deliberately trying to increase people's ill-health. There is indeed nothing beneficial about being a smoker or any other form of drug addict. The ethics of lying are more complicated. To some extent, we are lying every time we exceed the speed limit, in the sense that we wouldn't do it in front of a copper. In theory, we subscribe to the rules of the road, but are happy to apply our own judgement to break those rules when we feel it does no real harm. The police tend not to see it like that. For them, a rule is a rule is a rule and those rules have been put in place by society for a reason. It is not for the individual the flout that rule. In a democracy, you would have to try to get the rule changed. You'd be unlikely to succeed, so you quietly flout the rule. There are clearly many people who have no problem stealing from Tescos or other big supermarkets. They may feel it is different to stealing from a corner shop. Razor blades are the most stolen item, as they are easy to steal, but more to the point, ludicrously expensive. The consumer knows he is being ripped off. Still, most people, happily, will not steal. It could even be that the obscene cost of razor blades is partly to subsidise those who are stealing them. In game theory, if you can steal razor blades and get away with it, you should. The ethical position is not to steal them, even if you could. But then is Gillette's pricing ethical?
If you are employing game theory then define the game. Losing a round to ultimately win the game is surely the objective and this means we would also need to define what constitutes a round. My head hurts now.
