I wish there was a way to set how much I value my time and every extra mile driven, so that it would select only those tolls that are a good trade-off.
I remember back in grad school they told us we would have to take an ethics seminar and I thought it might be something interesting about the role of a scientist in society or something like that, but it was actually pretty much just "Don't have sex with the undergraduates, even though technically there isn't a strict rule against it."
So I wonder, how does a person go to a shelter and pick a pet? When I got my dog ten years ago, I wasn't actually planning to get a dog, he was the only dog there, and he just started freaking out when I walked past him. I didn't feel like I was making a choice. Yesterday I went to the animal shelter and deliberately met several sweet dogs, but I have no idea how I'm supposed to just pick which one will be in my life for probably about a decade after knowing them for only half an hour.
This alone isn't enough to get me to switch over to a different navigation app, but I certainly do have a preference for apps that will never deliberately give me suboptimal directions even when doing so is collectively best.
But in this latest case in Texas, ICE also received permission to force-feed the Cuban hunger striker through a “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy” tube insertion. This is a surgery in which medical staff make an incision in a person’s abdomen, insert a tube that remains in place indefinitely until it is surgically removed again and pump liquid directly into the stomach.
Are they keeping this prisoner constantly restrained?
I think our moral intuitions are out of alignment with a logical consideration of good and bad. So I'm not a bad person according to my moral intuitions (not the same thing as being a good person) but also pretty much everyone (including me) is a bad person according to logical consideration.
(My logic is that only humans appear to be moral agents, but non-human animals deserve moral consideration and there are a lot more non-human animals than there are humans. Thus even seemingly simple questions like "Is it good to save someone's life?" depend on whether it is better to prevent that person from eating meat by letting him die or to have him contribute to environmental degradation by remaining alive, and thereby prevent wild animals that would have suffered from being born. The effect on the person is not the major deciding factor.)
The problem with letting the President unilaterally start a war is that you can't unilaterally end a war - you can only unilaterally stop fighting, which is different and often a bad idea.
Getting on Trump's bad side can mean an anti-trust lawsuit or an end to tariff exemptions. With billions of dollars at stake, the executives would be negligent to act otherwise.
Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective. Maybe a philosophy that teaches one to refuse a life without dignity is, in that context, correct philosophy.
The New Hampshire style lowercase-L libertarians I met weren't like the online uppercase-L libertarians that that book is about. (They generally wouldn't call themselves libertarians, for one thing.) My impression (as, ultimately, an outsider) was that they were practical people accustomed to rural life who thought it was important that everyone should mind his own business.
Next: the half-track trim package.
8
I wish there was a way to set how much I value my time and every extra mile driven, so that it would select only those tolls that are a good trade-off.
The difference in gas prices between California and red states is still bigger than the difference between before and after Trump attacked Iran.
I remember back in grad school they told us we would have to take an ethics seminar and I thought it might be something interesting about the role of a scientist in society or something like that, but it was actually pretty much just "Don't have sex with the undergraduates, even though technically there isn't a strict rule against it."
So I wonder, how does a person go to a shelter and pick a pet? When I got my dog ten years ago, I wasn't actually planning to get a dog, he was the only dog there, and he just started freaking out when I walked past him. I didn't feel like I was making a choice. Yesterday I went to the animal shelter and deliberately met several sweet dogs, but I have no idea how I'm supposed to just pick which one will be in my life for probably about a decade after knowing them for only half an hour.
You're too late. They were hiring.
Rogue apostrophe detected.
The article focuses on the negatives but significant warming seems like it might be a net benefit for Canada.
That's a rather radical departure from society's general attitude towards suicide.
This alone isn't enough to get me to switch over to a different navigation app, but I certainly do have a preference for apps that will never deliberately give me suboptimal directions even when doing so is collectively best.
Would you rather have them let him die?
Edit: With that said,
Are they keeping this prisoner constantly restrained?
I think our moral intuitions are out of alignment with a logical consideration of good and bad. So I'm not a bad person according to my moral intuitions (not the same thing as being a good person) but also pretty much everyone (including me) is a bad person according to logical consideration.
(My logic is that only humans appear to be moral agents, but non-human animals deserve moral consideration and there are a lot more non-human animals than there are humans. Thus even seemingly simple questions like "Is it good to save someone's life?" depend on whether it is better to prevent that person from eating meat by letting him die or to have him contribute to environmental degradation by remaining alive, and thereby prevent wild animals that would have suffered from being born. The effect on the person is not the major deciding factor.)
The problem with letting the President unilaterally start a war is that you can't unilaterally end a war - you can only unilaterally stop fighting, which is different and often a bad idea.
Yeah, that's how democracy works in this case.
Getting on Trump's bad side can mean an anti-trust lawsuit or an end to tariff exemptions. With billions of dollars at stake, the executives would be negligent to act otherwise.
I'm a big fan of his, but I'm also not sure he's the right person to judge what a mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual should act like.
Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective. Maybe a philosophy that teaches one to refuse a life without dignity is, in that context, correct philosophy.
What's on your door that you might not want people to see? I really can't think of anything. (Generally the private things go inside the house...)
The New Hampshire style lowercase-L libertarians I met weren't like the online uppercase-L libertarians that that book is about. (They generally wouldn't call themselves libertarians, for one thing.) My impression (as, ultimately, an outsider) was that they were practical people accustomed to rural life who thought it was important that everyone should mind his own business.