TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some political differences
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Essentially, my question is, is at what point do we limit personal accomplishment in order to "level" the playing field?

Children of rich parents will always be "priveleged", so I'm not saying that rich people shouldn't be allowed to do what's best for their child all I'm saying is that those at the other end of the spectrum (poor family, lack of access to quality education and so forth) should be allowed to grow up in conditions as similar to those in rich families as possible. So it's not about lowering the bar for rich people, it's about raising the bar for poor one's.

Like I said, this is best done by funding schools and low-income families and - as it is the more well-off who pay the large majority of taxes - this is where the majority of the funding should come from. Therefore, it should be the obligation of those better off to raise the bar for those less well-off and contribute to the setting up of a truly capitalistic society. Given that they have benefitted so much from such a society, they should be actively willing to contribute towards its propogation and sustainability into the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Given that they have benefitted so much from such a society, they should be actively willing to contribute towards its propogation and sustainability into the future.

I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

Well, you are obligated to pay the taxes. I don't see why a part of those taxes shouldn't go for charity.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

quote:

Well, you are obligated to pay the taxes. I don't see why a part of those taxes shouldn't go for charity.

I'm not sure I like the word "charity". The ideas I'm talking about here have as much in common with centrally funded necessities like "road-building" - i.e. a social necessity that isn't going to be funded in another way - than what we normally associate with "charity" - i.e. the mere act of giving money or goods to those less fortunate as part of some empathetic act. The point that I'm trying to get across here is that levelling the "starting-point" for all individuals isn't mere charity, it's in the best interests of the capitalistic system: it isn't merely benefitting the individuals who receive the money (as with "charity") but rather the whole of society as well.

And yep, like our resident rocket-scientist (top pic ) Drug_Tito said, taxation is what I had in mind when I used the word "obligation". The theory is, if you want to live in a society (and, no matter how much of an individual you are, it is most likely within your best interests to live within a society) then it makes sense that this society should impose upon you - and all other citizens - an obligation to contribute back to it, in order to "sustain" it. Now in an ideal world, of course, these tax-contributions would be entirely "optional", but let's be honest: if taxation wasn't legally binding, who'd be willing to hand over their income (up to 50%+ of it depending on where you live) if they knew there wasn't going to be a homogenous contribution from all other citizens?

The lengths people go to to avoid paying tax, even though it is a legal requirement, should give us some indication of what would happen if we made tax a "voluntary" contribution.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And yep, like our resident rocket-scientist (top pic ) Drug_Tito said, taxation is what I had in mind when I used the word "obligation". The theory is, if you want to live in a society (and, no matter how much of an individual you are, it is most likely within your best interests to live within a society) then it makes sense that this society should impose upon you - and all other citizens - an obligation to contribute back to it, in order to "sustain" it. Now in an ideal world, of course, these tax-contributions would be entirely "optional", but let's be honest: if taxation wasn't legally binding, who'd be willing to hand over their income (up to 50%+ of it depending on where you live) if they knew there wasn't going to be a homogenous contribution from all other citizens? The lengths people go to to avoid paying tax, even though it is a legal requirement, should give us some indication of what would happen if we made tax a "voluntary" contribution.

totally agree whith that, and most of the other things you have written.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I believe that damned language barrier is at fault! Although I do respect you making the effort to argue in my primary language .

hehe, it's good practice for me actually, have raised my english grade a lot since i started to post on TA. but you understand most of what i'm trying to say, or is my english hard to understand?

anyway, what i was trying to say was that people doesn't necessarily define right and wrong the same as the laws, and all people don't care about right and wrong, and then the question is why don't they do that? no cause they are raised in the wrong environment with wrong ethics.

quote:

I am lazy because I choose to be. There have been many a time when there have been no otgher reasons for me to not do work other than me not feeling to do work. Genetics or upbringing do not play a role. There are plenty of lower class people who choose to work 50/60 hours a week in order to make ends meet. By the same set of standards, there are plenty of people who earn a lot of money who work 60/70 hours a week to make ends meet. Regardless of our socio-economic situation, we all make decisions about how much we want to work.

you still miss my point, why do we take the decisions we do?

quote:

Well then this is where we disagree. I am of the opinion that we as humans, are at a higher level of competance/understnading than animals. I like to believe that we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong and make correct choices in life regardless of our upbringing/environment. Do I know what is good for a mother of 4 who is getting less than 30,000 a year? No SHE does.

yes i agree, human are at a much higher level of competence/understanding but still we do not affect our decissions as much as you think we do. i'm not a supporter of communist government (not really a pure socialist either, more like socialist-liberal) where the people doesn't have to take any choices, i do believe in personal choice, BUT people should not be punished for something that they doesn't really control.

quote:

What? That's elitism at its purest. The poor make unethical, ammoral, stupid decisions at best therefore THEY are better off when WE make decisions for them ...

yes that may be elitism, of course it doesn't always apply but most times i think that that is the best.

quote:

So why do we not place a weight on individuals who went to college? Any person that went to college automatically receives 2.5 times the vote of a person who did not go to college. They are "smarter" right? Therefore they would know better how to run the country ... The "stupid" don't know how to govern themselves. It's fun seeing how the the "intelligentsia" works

yes, probably that would be the best way, BUT the value of a human should be the same whoever you are. so this is why i don't support communism/elite societies, nor do i believe in societies where every individual has a too big choice, so therefore something in between is the best.

quote:

So which is it? Do we have free choice or are we products of our environment? They are antagonistic of each other.

not necessarily, you can do free choices, but as i said before, you shouldn't blame them to much if they make the wrong, and it's society's task to help them if they make bad choices, it's also society's task to help people make good choices.

quote:

Exactly, so in light of all the luxuries that you possess, why are people still poor around you?

imo, the definition of poor is proportional to how much money the average/rich man has. so the poor is being richer and richer the line goes forward.

is like with computers, 10 years ago a 80mhz computer was something very fast and you could do "everything" with it, today you can't do a shit with it, even though you still can do the same things with it like you could 10 years ago. Everything is relative.

quote:

No not everybody jumps out of their windows ... but I don't want to work such that I can take care of myself. I would much rathter YOU take care of me, becaues I was raised this way.

poor you... people who jump out of their windows and get into a wheelchair to get on welfare i would more define as mentally ill

There is a huge difference in paying taxes to the government (Which they can then use to fund (UGH) various entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc, as well as to provide certain public goods like roads/infrastructure, defense, etc.) and having some lazy "poor" (Poor in relation to me because they're obsessed with the 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentaility) person sitting on the sidelines crying that I am obligated to give him a portion of my hard earned wealth simply because I have made more than he has (By whatever means, as long as I have not infringed on someone elses rights by so doing). I have no problem paying taxes--I pay a shitload already and never bitch and moan about it because it affords me the rights to act by my own free will etc. What I get pissed off about is the people who don't pay anything in taxes trying to lay claim to my wealth, as if it's their birthright to own some of my personal property. In my (admittedly somewhat idealistic) view of a free society, nobody is "entitled" to more than they produce. If a "poor" person pays nothing in taxes, he is entitled to ZERO tax rebates--then it becomes a forced welfare society where wealth is arbirarily redistributed in a manner that infringes on the rights of those who already are paying the lionshare of what it costs to run the system.

Put it this way--if you continually try to take more and more from the most productive members of society and give it to the dead weight, you'll likely hit a critical point where the prime movers go on strike and say 'to hell with the rest of you'. What will the looters do for themselves when they can no longer count on the 'rich' people to 'give' them a living? Maybe then they'll see the light.


St. Andrew--if you make $5 million dollars a year, are you rich? I can't see how you wouldn't be, I mean you could pretty much purchase anything you want (With the exception of your own private jet and a few other things) and live decadently for all of your days.

OK, what if Warren Buffet or Bill Gates moves in next door to you? Let's see--Gates is worth about $40 billion now. Suddenly your net worth is only .0125% (.000125) of your neighbor. Does that make you poor? (Relatively speaking perhaps, but are you REALLY poor?). Would you then feel that your new neighbor should just turn over $20 billion dollars to you so that you're both "equally rich"? I imagine Gates would probably have you dragged out and shot in public before he would do such a thing. How is that any different from simply stealing his wealth? Why do you feel that you're entitled to his hard earned wealth? You did nothing to earn it other than the fact that you live next door to him and his wealth dwarfs yours, relatively speaking. Shouldn't wealth/poverty be more of a measure of happiness? If you're content with your life, aren't you more rich than money alone can bring you? The entitlement menality is rapidly becoming one of the most destructive facets of our society.

It's great to want to be wealthy and successful, but stealing isn't the way to get it. Taking by force is not how you achieve happiness and success.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka There is a huge difference in paying taxes to the government (Which they can then use to fund (UGH) various entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc, as well as to provide certain public goods like roads/infrastructure, defense, etc.) and having some lazy "poor" (Poor in relation to me because they're obsessed with the 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentaility) person sitting on the sidelines crying that I am obligated to give him a portion of my hard earned wealth simply because I have made more than he has (By whatever means, as long as I have not infringed on someone elses rights by so doing). I have no problem paying taxes--I pay a shitload already and never bitch and moan about it because it affords me the rights to act by my own free will etc.

but still, if you have a system where you actively everyday you are on welfare has to do something to get out of it, then you really can't blame them for being lazy if they don't get a job.

quote:

Put it this way--if you continually try to take more and more from the most productive members of society and give it to the dead weight, you'll likely hit a critical point where the prime movers go on strike and say 'to hell with the rest of you'. What will the looters do for themselves when they can no longer count on the 'rich' people to 'give' them a living? Maybe then they'll see the light.

you can also put it the other way around, there is not a chance that the 1% richest in a country make up for their 20 000times higher fortune. what if the working class, the ones actually producing something in society, went out to strike cause they wanted fairer salaries?

and just because you have a welfare society doesn't mean that everyone in that society stops working!!!

quote:

St. Andrew--if you make $5 million dollars a year, are you rich? I can't see how you wouldn't be, I mean you could pretty much purchase anything you want (With the exception of your own private jet and a few other things) and live decadently for all of your days. OK, what if Warren Buffet or Bill Gates moves in next door to you? Let's see--Gates is worth about $40 billion now. Suddenly your net worth is only .0125% (.000125) of your neighbor. Does that make you poor? (Relatively speaking perhaps, but are you REALLY poor?). Would you then feel that your new neighbor should just turn over $20 billion dollars to you so that you're both "equally rich"? I imagine Gates would probably have you dragged out and shot in public before he would do such a thing. How is that any different from simply stealing his wealth? Why do you feel that you're entitled to his hard earned wealth? You did nothing to earn it other than the fact that you live next door to him and his wealth dwarfs yours, relatively speaking. Shouldn't wealth/poverty be more of a measure of happiness? If you're content with your life, aren't you more rich than money alone can bring you? The entitlement menality is rapidly becoming one of the most destructive facets of our society.

if you can buy everything you want, you are not poor, regardless of how much money everyone else in society has. but if the case were: you make 5 million dollars a year (this year is 2057 or something...), you can not buy everything in society, there is sooo many new very expensive things that you cannot afford (although you can still afford everything you had before), almost the whole society afford those things, but you cannot. then yes in a way you are poor.

But i think this is very theoretical, i don't think we will ever live in such a overflow so 5 million dollars is poor... and probably i would change my mind in welfare policis in such an overflow...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew you can also put it the other way around, there is not a chance that the 1% richest in a country make up for their 20 000times higher fortune. what if the working class, the ones actually producing something in society, went out to strike cause they wanted fairer salaries?

Honestly, if you remove the potential union factor, you'd probably see that those employees would not have jobs and would be replaced by someone who is willing to provide the same service at an appropriate wage rate who would gladly take the place of the worker who is jealous because he doesn't have as much as the owner of the company. It happens every day. Look at how jobs are leaving the U.S. to go to China and the Phillipenes right now. I have conflicing feelings about this, but it is a reality of a free economy that as technology improves, some jobs become commoditized and shift depending on who is willing to do the work at what price.

They could certainly quit and go on strike--that is their freedom and their right to choose to do so, however they would be smart to realize that they would not have a job in the first place if not for the person they are striking against.

quote:

if you can buy everything you want, you are not poor, regardless of how much money everyone else in society has. but if the case were: you make 5 million dollars a year (this year is 2057 or something

My example assumes the date is today, as $5 million today seems rich by today's standards. Perhaps the problem is that your 'wants' aren't in line with your abilities. In this case you should rethink your priorities.

quote:

imo, the definition of poor is proportional to how much money the average/rich man has. so the poor is being richer and richer the line goes forward.

You are in direct conflict with yourself. It can't be both. Compared to Gates, you are virtually homeless with your $5 million salary. My point is that you have to determine your own happiness--it's not something you can put a price tag on.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Honestly, if you remove the potential union factor, you'd probably see that those employees would not have jobs and would be replaced by someone who is willing to provide the same service at an appropriate wage rate who would gladly take the place of the worker who is jealous because he doesn't have as much as the owner of the company.

also this applies the other way around.

quote:

My example assumes the date is today, as $5 million today seems rich by today's standards. Perhaps the problem is that your 'wants' aren't in line with your abilities. In this case you should rethink your priorities. You are in direct conflict with yourself. It can't be both. Compared to Gates, you are virtually homeless with your $5 million salary. My point is that you have to determine your own happiness--it's not something you can put a price tag on.

no, i meant more like overall in the country, just because you live in a rich area it doesn't mean you are poor.

and in one way i can agree you are right, poor isn't the best word to use, afganistans are poor not US citizens, but everything is relative...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Children of rich parents will always be "priveleged", so I'm not saying that rich people shouldn't be allowed to do what's best for their child all I'm saying is that those at the other end of the spectrum (poor family, lack of access to quality education and so forth) should be allowed to grow up in conditions as similar to those in rich families as possible. So it's not about lowering the bar for rich people, it's about raising the bar for poor one's. Like I said, this is best done by funding schools and low-income families and - as it is the more well-off who pay the large majority of taxes - this is where the majority of the funding should come from. Therefore, it should be the obligation of those better off to raise the bar for those less well-off and contribute to the setting up of a truly capitalistic society. Given that they have benefitted so much from such a society, they should be actively willing to contribute towards its propogation and sustainability into the future.

I was very pleased with your first paragraph ... however, I became completely disheartened with your second paragraph . Yes, the wealty/any class should help out the poor/any lesser class in some way in order to give them an opportunity to compete. But then you bring in the word "obligation" at which point I start getting butterflies in the stomach. You seem to imply that there is some kind of natural progression that the rich benefit off of society through no consequence of their own actions ... let's forget the "daddy's little boy" red herring because that has been an oft maligned standard of comparison against the wealthy. Let us assume that the "daddy's rich kid" person contributed the same amount of effort/intelligence/luck to attain their position as a "ragges to riches" person ... since we know nothing of their circumstance. Therefore, as a result of their wealth alone, they have some kind of "obligation" to give something back to society regardless of acheivement? If you go by the strictest libertarian/free market standard of society, they have no obligation at all to give more than what they bargained with.

quote:

hehe, it's good practice for me actually, have raised my english grade a lot since i started to post on TA. but you understand most of what i'm trying to say, or is my english hard to understand? anyway, what i was trying to say was that people doesn't necessarily define right and wrong the same as the laws, and all people don't care about right and wrong, and then the question is why don't they do that? no cause they are raised in the wrong environment with wrong ethics.

Well I understand everthing of what what you're saying normally except for philosophical issues since they tend to be more language intensive . Wish I could learn a foreign language ... tried and failed 3 times ...

Back to the ethics arguments, if your case study were correct, then we would see definitive proof that the poor committ all the crimes and the rich committ no crimes ... we would see a statistical correlation between wealth and morality, correct? I would tend to dispute the claim that a person's right or wrong is dependant upon their wealth so much as it's dependant upon their parenting. There are many people in Africa who are considerably poorer than people in the US on such larger scales yet do we see a proportional increase in crime in these countries that is comparable to our levels of police protection?

quote:

you still miss my point, why do we take the decisions we do?

We make the decisions that we do based upon different the different value systems that we have. Some people have the desire to make something of themselves, therefore they work to accomplish that change. Some people want instant gratrification therefore they sacrifice their future to acheive that. Decisions are in no way scientific because we possess individual, unpredictable desires to that define our human character. We possess CHOICE. If we do not, than we might as well utilize a minority report computer system to PREDICT our choices beforehand and toss us in prison. Our ability to bypass instinct IS what makes us human.

quote:

yes i agree, human are at a much higher level of competence/understanding but still we do not affect our decissions as much as you think we do. i'm not a supporter of communist government (not really a pure socialist either, more like socialist-liberal) where the people doesn't have to take any choices, i do believe in personal choice, BUT people should not be punished for something that they doesn't really control

So what personal choices do people control? What makes that any different from choices they do not control? Why are people genetically dispositioned to make one choice, regardless of rational reasoning, over any other? Therefore why should people be provided the opportunity to make ANY choice since they will likely make innaccurate choices representative of their genetics/environmental upbringing?

Why assume that a child with a poor background CAN rise to a level beyond a child with a wealthy background? Why shall we not simply assume they are stupid and ignorant as a byproduct of their environment?

quote:

yes that may be elitism, of course it doesn't always apply but most times i think that that is the best

Well, I'm a smart individual (right ) and I'm pretty sure I know what's best for them so I say we make them undergo VERY strict/HARSH conditions in order to rehabilitate them to know what is good for themselves ... whippings, beatings, and starvation. That way they will eventually know the hardships of life, prosper and attain what's best for them right?

quote:

not necessarily, you can do free choices, but as i said before, you shouldn't blame them to much if they make the wrong, and it's society's task to help them if they make bad choices, it's also society's task to help people make good choices

We have free choice but we shouldn't blame each other for making the wrong choice? I like taking things to extremes I realise, but we have free choice but if we committ murder, we shouldn't be held accountable for making that free choice? The instance we depart from making the "wrong" choice from the "right" choice we lose all accountability? And it's the the "obligation" of others to make sure that WE don't fuck up? Much like it's the obligation of others to make sure we are just as wealthy and don't "fuck up"?

quote:

imo, the definition of poor is proportional to how much money the average/rich man has. so the poor is being richer and richer the line goes forward. is like with computers, 10 years ago a 80mhz computer was something very fast and you could do "everything" with it, today you can't do a shit with it, even though you still can do the same things with it like you could 10 years ago. Everything is relative.

Well that's your definition ... much like MY definition. Slightly different, but to different people, it is one and the same. Why do YOU deserve such a large proportional increase in wealth over ME despite the fact that your wealth superiority over me is completely subjective when in fact you have an obligation to me because of my genetics/upbringing?

again, sorry for my extremely slow answer....

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Back to the ethics arguments, if your case study were correct, then we would see definitive proof that the poor committ all the crimes and the rich committ no crimes ... we would see a statistical correlation between wealth and morality, correct? I would tend to dispute the claim that a person's right or wrong is dependant upon their wealth so much as it's dependant upon their parenting. There are many people in Africa who are considerably poorer than people in the US on such larger scales yet do we see a proportional increase in crime in these countries that is comparable to our levels of police protection?

nah, it doesn't necessarily has to do with how wealthy you are, more (only?) about how you are raised.

quote:

We make the decisions that we do based upon different the different value systems that we have. Some people have the desire to make something of themselves, therefore they work to accomplish that change. Some people want instant gratrification therefore they sacrifice their future to acheive that. Decisions are in no way scientific because we possess individual, unpredictable desires to that define our human character. We possess CHOICE. If we do not, than we might as well utilize a minority report computer system to PREDICT our choices beforehand and toss us in prison. Our ability to bypass instinct IS what makes us human.

true everyone has different value systems. that is the whole point, and you get this "value system" by either your environment or from your own brain. so either smartness or environment. that is the point. the point is also that you should try to make as many people as possible think the "right" way, i want a society without criminals etc, so i support a welfare society where the environment for everyone should be as good as possible, you may call that brainwashing and it may be, but still that is the way to go to reach "my" way of a good society.

and probably there is some way of doing a computer program that predict everything like that. that would VERY advanced though, and sometimes there is some things you can't really predict.

quote:

So what personal choices do people control? What makes that any different from choices they do not control? Why are people genetically dispositioned to make one choice, regardless of rational reasoning, over any other? Therefore why should people be provided the opportunity to make ANY choice since they will likely make innaccurate choices representative of their genetics/environmental upbringing?

In a way we control all our decisions, because we do. the only problem is _how_ we take our decisions. why do some people take the decision to be cleaner, and some to be engineers? why doesn't everyone want to be engineers, cause you would get a better life then...

so everyone make their decisions but how much do we really affect them? you have never seriously considered being a cleaner, so why is that? and then the other way around, have a cleaner ever seriously tried to be a something more advanced?

i just discovered how this example highly applied to myself too, "cause you would get a better life then", how do i know, i have never been a professional cleaner? why do i think that that is a bad job? that is because i am raised in a environment where i have learned that it is better to be an engineer than an cleaner. a cleaner may have the opposite opinion, "to be an engineer is just waste of time" etc etc. so did i really had a choice when i choose to read at university/collage? yes i did, but in an other way, no. I have never really considered to not read more than high school.

quote:

Why assume that a child with a poor background CAN rise to a level beyond a child with a wealthy background? Why shall we not simply assume they are stupid and ignorant as a byproduct of their environment?

of course they _CAN_ but the odds is much smaller if you don't have the same opportunities. if you want to go up from a poor family to be a rich successful man you have to fight a lot more than if you are from an wealthy family. there is a reason why the rich families usually stay rich and why the poor usually stay poor.

quote:

Well, I'm a smart individual (right ) and I'm pretty sure I know what's best for them so I say we make them undergo VERY strict/HARSH conditions in order to rehabilitate them to know what is good for themselves ... whippings, beatings, and starvation. That way they will eventually know the hardships of life, prosper and attain what's best for them right?

nah, it doesn't apply on you

no seriously this is the backsides of elitism, elite don't always know what is the best (they may have missed the bad environments and how people think there ) that's ONE of the reasons why i'm not a fully supporter of that.

quote:

We have free choice but we shouldn't blame each other for making the wrong choice? I like taking things to extremes I realise, but we have free choice but if we committ murder, we shouldn't be held accountable for making that free choice? The instance we depart from making the "wrong" choice from the "right" choice we lose all accountability? And it's the the "obligation" of others to make sure that WE don't fuck up? Much like it's the obligation of others to make sure we are just as wealthy and don't "fuck up"?

of course we have to hold them accountable for murder, as an deterrent example, but in prison it shouldn't be too bad and there should be rehabilitation.
like we have to force people to search for job, but if they don't get any, they shouldn't be punished to much for that and they may also have to do something meanwhile, like studying or working for the government.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew again, sorry for my extremely slow answer....

Eh ... my turn to be slow

quote:

nah, it doesn't necessarily has to do with how wealthy you are, more (only?) about how you are raised.

But that's not always the case. There are again, many examples where parents have tried to raise their kids correctly but they make inappropriate choices in life. Certainly upbringing has some role in the choices you make, however, not all strippers/prostitutes come from broken homes or bad upbringing. At a certain point, everybody makes the same choices, knows the consequences of that choice, and then makes it. Nobody's fate is predetermined from their environment/upbringing. Regardless of a person's enviornment they still have the ability to choose their path in life and if they choose the wrong path than they face the consequences of their actions. They aren't being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

quote:

true everyone has different value systems. that is the whole point, and you get this "value system" by either your environment or from your own brain. so either smartness or environment. that is the point. the point is also that you should try to make as many people as possible think the "right" way, i want a society without criminals etc, so i support a welfare society where the environment for everyone should be as good as possible, you may call that brainwashing and it may be, but still that is the way to go to reach "my" way of a good society.

But a person's value system is not the point. When you are being tried for a crime in court, the court doesn't consider a person's "value system" when they determine punishment or guilt for a crime. If I watch violent tv and play violent video games for 10 years such that I become completely desensitized to violence and then proceed to kill someone, that doesn't diminish the levity of my actions nor the punishment assigned with those actions. The quintessential fact remains that I was able to distinguish right from wrong, and I proceeded with my choice to do the "wrong" thing. At no point was I forced to kill and therefore, I should face the consequences of my actions regardless of circumstance.

quote:

In a way we control all our decisions, because we do. the only problem is _how_ we take our decisions. why do some people take the decision to be cleaner, and some to be engineers? why doesn't everyone want to be engineers, cause you would get a better life then... so everyone make their decisions but how much do we really affect them? you have never seriously considered being a cleaner, so why is that? and then the other way around, have a cleaner ever seriously tried to be a something more advanced? i just discovered how this example highly applied to myself too, "cause you would get a better life then", how do i know, i have never been a professional cleaner? why do i think that that is a bad job? that is because i am raised in a environment where i have learned that it is better to be an engineer than an cleaner. a cleaner may have the opposite opinion, "to be an engineer is just waste of time" etc etc. so did i really had a choice when i choose to read at university/collage? yes i did, but in an other way, no. I have never really considered to not read more than high school.

Because most are unwilling to put forth the effort to attain that position. Simple as that. They make poor choices at the onset of life and they consistently make poor choices later in life that results in their lower standard of life. Sure they might wish they were an engineer making a lot more money when they're 40 or 50, but they should have been putting forth the effort to reach that goal when they were 16 or 17. While that guy was slacking off or whatever, others had been working diligentely and therefore life has smiled upon them and they became engineers whereas our unfortunate case study has become a cleaner with no skills. Smarts are not everything. Those who may not have had the aptitude to become scientists or engineers instead learn trade skills such as being a mechanic/factory worker/etc., and they make a decent living. If you want a decent life, you better be prepared to barter something for it. Life isn't one big hand me down for the inept/lazy. Those who have the motivation to succeed generally succeed. You not considering to NOT go to university was a choice you made. Sure you may have not considered it fully, but nobody forced you to go to school.

quote:

of course they _CAN_ but the odds is much smaller if you don't have the same opportunities. if you want to go up from a poor family to be a rich successful man you have to fight a lot more than if you are from an wealthy family. there is a reason why the rich families usually stay rich and why the poor usually stay poor.

Yes some people have it easier than others. Some people are born beautiful, some people are born ugly. If your parents made the smart choices in life such that you have an easier time being successful, you shouldn't be penalized for your parent's correct choices in life. There are plenty of poor people who work diligentely to ensure that their children have it easier in life ... should they be penalized as well for the transgressions of those irresponsible parents? Regardless of how difficult it may be however, the child ultimately possesses control of their own fate. Whether they make the choices that make them work to succeed in life is ultimately their perogative.

nah, it doesn't apply on you

no seriously this is the backsides of elitism, elite don't always know what is the best (they may have missed the bad environments and how people think there ) that's ONE of the reasons why i'm not a fully supporter of that.

quote:

of course we have to hold them accountable for murder, as an deterrent example, but in prison it shouldn't be too bad and there should be rehabilitation. like we have to force people to search for job, but if they don't get any, they shouldn't be punished to much for that and they may also have to do something meanwhile, like studying or working for the government.

Ok well then should we also assign punishment based upon upbringing? If a person from a rich family committs murder should we give him more punishment than a person from a poor family committing murder? Regardless of both making the same choices, one (supposedly) had less personal influence over his own choice so therefore he should be treated less harshly? Or is it both knew right from wrong, both made the wrong choice, and both should be treated equally?

I can't believe we went from welfare to this

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Eh ... my turn to be slow

yeah, i thought you gave up so i wrote that other thread (hopeless with Christmas vacations, too much time to consume)

quote:

But that's not always the case. There are again, many examples where parents have tried to raise their kids correctly but they make inappropriate choices in life. Certainly upbringing has some role in the choices you make, however, not all strippers/prostitutes come from broken homes or bad upbringing. At a certain point, everybody makes the same choices, knows the consequences of that choice, and then makes it. Nobody's fate is predetermined from their environment/upbringing. Regardless of a person's enviornment they still have the ability to choose their path in life and if they choose the wrong path than they face the consequences of their actions. They aren't being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

If parents try to raise their children to be "good" childes and they becomes prostituted anyway, it can be because of many reasons: the parents didn't use the right raising method (perhaps they was too harsh, too liberal or something...), the children got into wrong friendships, the children did have some gene that made them want to be prostituted etc. they did never have any _free_ choice, so there was a kind of fate.

but what we were really discussing here was that how wealthy you are doesn't necessarily has to do with how good your environment is.

quote:

But a person's value system is not the point. When you are being tried for a crime in court, the court doesn't consider a person's "value system" when they determine punishment or guilt for a crime. If I watch violent tv and play violent video games for 10 years such that I become completely desensitized to violence and then proceed to kill someone, that doesn't diminish the levity of my actions nor the punishment assigned with those actions. The quintessential fact remains that I was able to distinguish right from wrong, and I proceeded with my choice to do the "wrong" thing. At no point was I forced to kill and therefore, I should face the consequences of my actions regardless of circumstance.

In my perfect society shouldn't this guy get any punishment at all. But that shouldn't work even i realize. Because there may be some guy who doesn't kill just because that there is a punishment on that crime, even though it doesn't help the one who killed in this case it may help others. BUT this guy didn't have a _free_ choice. He choose to kill, but the question is why? maybe because of his violent tv games, maybe because of his genes (i mean there are people who play a lot of video games but doesn't kill people).

quote:

Because most are unwilling to put forth the effort to attain that position. Simple as that. They make poor choices at the onset of life and they consistently make poor choices later in life that results in their lower standard of life. Sure they might wish they were an engineer making a lot more money when they're 40 or 50, but they should have been putting forth the effort to reach that goal when they were 16 or 17. While that guy was slacking off or whatever, others had been working diligentely and therefore life has smiled upon them and they became engineers whereas our unfortunate case study has become a cleaner with no skills. Smarts are not everything. Those who may not have had the aptitude to become scientists or engineers instead learn trade skills such as being a mechanic/factory worker/etc., and they make a decent living. If you want a decent life, you better be prepared to barter something for it. Life isn't one big hand me down for the inept/lazy. Those who have the motivation to succeed generally succeed. You not considering to NOT go to university was a choice you made. Sure you may have not considered it fully, but nobody forced you to go to school.

So you are unwilling, isn't that a genetic thing? or who is unwilling? why are someone unwilling? some are just willing, and some are not. it is a choice you take, but it's not free.

quote:

Yes some people have it easier than others. Some people are born beautiful, some people are born ugly. If your parents made the smart choices in life such that you have an easier time being successful, you shouldn't be penalized for your parent's correct choices in life. There are plenty of poor people who work diligentely to ensure that their children have it easier in life ... should they be penalized as well for the transgressions of those irresponsible parents? Regardless of how difficult it may be however, the child ultimately possesses control of their own fate. Whether they make the choices that make them work to succeed in life is ultimately their perogative.

Isn't to be able to work hard as much a gene property as being smart or beautiful?

quote:

Ok well then should we also assign punishment based upon upbringing? If a person from a rich family committs murder should we give him more punishment than a person from a poor family committing murder? Regardless of both making the same choices, one (supposedly) had less personal influence over his own choice so therefore he should be treated less harshly? Or is it both knew right from wrong, both made the wrong choice, and both should be treated equally?

NO ONE have free choice so everyone should be treated equal, even those who _should_ know better.

quote:

I can't believe we went from welfare to this

lol not me either, but this is important in my opinion when you think of welfare. if everyone had an equal chance and there really was a FREE choice, then i would probably NOT support welfare in the way i do now. and this discussion is pretty pointless in a way, non of us will ever give up, it's all about some political differences...

quote:

yeah, i thought you gave up so i wrote that other thread (hopeless with Christmas vacations, too much time to consume)

I never give up . I either admit defeat, compromise on opinion, or agree to disagree.

quote:

If parents try to raise their children to be "good" childes and they becomes prostituted anyway, it can be because of many reasons: the parents didn't use the right raising method (perhaps they was too harsh, too liberal or something...), the children got into wrong friendships, the children did have some gene that made them want to be prostituted etc. they did never have any _free_ choice, so there was a kind of fate. but what we were really discussing here was that how wealthy you are doesn't necessarily has to do with how good your environment is. . . . In my perfect society shouldn't this guy get any punishment at all. But that shouldn't work even i realize. Because there may be some guy who doesn't kill just because that there is a punishment on that crime, even though it doesn't help the one who killed in this case it may help others. BUT this guy didn't have a _free_ choice. He choose to kill, but the question is why? maybe because of his violent tv games, maybe because of his genes (i mean there are people who play a lot of video games but doesn't kill people). . . . So you are unwilling, isn't that a genetic thing? or who is unwilling? why are someone unwilling? some are just willing, and some are not. it is a choice you take, but it's not free. . . . Isn't to be able to work hard as much a gene property as being smart or beautiful? . . . NO ONE have free choice so everyone should be treated equal, even those who _should_ know better.

Ok, perhaps we have a disagreement on the differences free will and choice are. I think we are starting to get into the philosophy of determinism vs. free will debate. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I would probably agree on some parts. A lot of our actions are influenced by our experiences and our genetics. However, going back to what I stated in the other thread, the choices we make early in life have less and less to do with our experiences and thus are truer manifestations of our free will minus genetic influences. Therefore the cascading choices in life that are influenced by our experiences are a direct result of the choices we made that were free choices absent of influence from experience. With respect to having an absolute free will in the sense of having no influence whatsoever from any experience at all we don�t, it is impossible to attain in virtually any circumstance. Now whether you wish to define this influence over choice as the definitive proof for the complete absence of free will, that is questionable. Are we creatures that are only defined by our experiences? Or is there more to us than that, is there an us beyond our mere experiences? Would a set of twins who undergo the same experiences make exactly the same choices every time?

To me, free choice is a decision made understanding the implications and consequences of the action resulting from that choice. Does a prostitute know what their lifestyle would be like under prostitution? Do they know that their actions entail certain consequences that they are perhaps unaware of? Yes � therefore they �freely� choose to become a prostititute despite whatever consequences that decision entailed. Does a person who decides to not work hard in school or in their job realize the implications of their actions resulting in a lower standard of living? Yes, however, despite these consequences they �freely� choose to endorse that lifestyle which would lead to their lower standard of living. Therefore, they freely choose to assume that lifestyle. The same thing goes for a criminal, did they realize that carrying out their crime would result in punishment? Yes, they did and therefore they were prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. Although they may have been influenced by their environment, they willingly embraced the determinism of what would happen if caught. Essentially, the deterrence from being lazy, slothful, criminal, or immoral were not enough to sway their choice and they were accepting of the consequences of their actions. If they were not willing to accept the possible consequences of their actions they would not have made the choices that they had � therefore if they accepted the consequences of their actions then society should be accepting of the choice they made and whatever negative ramifications that choice had upon their well-being.

If one were to fully embrace determinism, one could argue that society should impose the harshest crime of death on all amoral activities in order to override an individual�s instinctual subscription to urges derived from experience and genetics. That by providing enough of an incentive to NOT commit such acts they were previously destined to commit, they are influenced to make the correct �choice.� Or perhaps another alternative is to forcefully MAKE individuals have the correct experiences such that their �choices� are stacked towards making the correct ones. Of course, we�ll still have to use that ever-useful eugenics program to weed out the individuals who are genetically predisposed towards the incorrect choices regardless of how much conditioning they get from experience.

At either rate, even if we fully embrace determinism, most philosophical arguments for determinism still call for societal punishment and accountability.
When a person is making a decision, the person knows, more or less, which ones are the "good" ones and which ones are the "bad" ones although there are no absolute definitions. When an immoral act is committed, it is up to society to accuse and deal with those who are immoral. Be this with whatever punishment is deemed appropriate. How can this be justified in the view that the accused did not have a choice? Well guess what, we too do not have a choice when we accuse and trial them. One cannot embrace determinism in the individual and put society above that standard. We all pay fully for all of our actions, and social retributions are part of that. Morality and immorality are our constructs with which we do as we please, and they are no more solid that the accusation that a person has broke them but nonetheless, they have made a decision that other living beings do not wish him to have made. It is this, the decision that others do not want you to make, that is the basic definition of morality. Pressure, justice and ethics are all moral methods of regulating the methods that people choose to execute whether or not it was their "real" choice or not. The long term consequences are important all the time, and it is moral that individuals in a society seek their own protection through a justice system. Whether or not a person chooses his own actions, it is still just to determine whether it was moral or immoral, whether they wanted to do it or not. Morals are what we consider as a result of our actions. Immoral actions are just that, actions. When a person makes actions they make themselves answerable to moral questioning and justice.

quote:

lol not me either, but this is important in my opinion when you think of welfare. if everyone had an equal chance and there really was a FREE choice, then i would probably NOT support welfare in the way i do now. and this discussion is pretty pointless in a way, non of us will ever give up, it's all about some political differences...

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok, perhaps we have a disagreement on the differences free will and choice are. I think we are starting to get into the philosophy of determinism vs. free will debate. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I would probably agree on some parts. A lot of our actions are influenced by our experiences and our genetics. However, going back to what I stated in the other thread, the choices we make early in life have less and less to do with our experiences and thus are truer manifestations of our free will minus genetic influences. Therefore the cascading choices in life that are influenced by our experiences are a direct result of the choices we made that were free choices absent of influence from experience. With respect to having an absolute free will in the sense of having no influence whatsoever from any experience at all we don�t, it is impossible to attain in virtually any circumstance. Now whether you wish to define this influence over choice as the definitive proof for the complete absence of free will, that is questionable. Are we creatures that are only defined by our experiences? Or is there more to us than that, is there an us beyond our mere experiences? Would a set of twins who undergo the same experiences make exactly the same choices every time?

i'm sorry to say this, but IMO mankind is highly overrated, in many ways we are nothing more than creatures only affected by our genetics and experiences. a set of twins that undergo EXACTLY (and by that i mean that they should have the same life!) the same experiences should take the same decisions, as discussed in the other thread there is also a couple of random factors that we cannot affect, but that doesn't make us less animals.

it is true that our first decisions in life have less or almost nothing to do with our environment, even though even very small children try to copy their environment. But if i understand your argument right, you are saying that because of the fact that we are less influenced by our environment in the beginning of our lives, and that our decisions there will have big effect on our decisions later? I can partly agree to that, because in a way most of us are in some way choosing our environment, some more, some less, some not at all. i have also heard that our lives are formed during the first 5 years of our lives, i'm not sure if i can agree to that but it is certainly something in it. Anyway, this theory makes 0-5 year old children accountable for all their bad things later in life, don't know about us but in Sweden you have to be at least 15 before you can be held accountable for any crime or such. So if a 5 year old boy murdered someone, would you send him to death sentence? No you would probably try to take care of him instead, and due to this theory you shoulnd't make any difference between a 5 year old and a 45 year old boy....

quote:

To me, free choice is a decision made understanding the implications and consequences of the action resulting from that choice. Does a prostitute know what their lifestyle would be like under prostitution? Do they know that their actions entail certain consequences that they are perhaps unaware of? Yes � therefore they �freely� choose to become a prostititute despite whatever consequences that decision entailed. Does a person who decides to not work hard in school or in their job realize the implications of their actions resulting in a lower standard of living? Yes, however, despite these consequences they �freely� choose to endorse that lifestyle which would lead to their lower standard of living. Therefore, they freely choose to assume that lifestyle. The same thing goes for a criminal, did they realize that carrying out their crime would result in punishment? Yes, they did and therefore they were prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. Although they may have been influenced by their environment, they willingly embraced the determinism of what would happen if caught. Essentially, the deterrence from being lazy, slothful, criminal, or immoral were not enough to sway their choice and they were accepting of the consequences of their actions. If they were not willing to accept the possible consequences of their actions they would not have made the choices that they had � therefore if they accepted the consequences of their actions then society should be accepting of the choice they made and whatever negative ramifications that choice had upon their well-being.

I can agree with you that what we call free choice is really a decision from our understanding, considering all the consequences, it is what our brain want, though that has noting to do with FREE will...
The problem is that i don't think all people realize the consequences of their decisions, nor do everyone have the knowledge to make a right decision. everyone with a bit of insight realize that a engineer have a better life than a prostitute, even the prostituted realize this and i think almost everyone of them regret their decisions to be prostituted later in life. So should people be held responsible for bad choices they doesn't realize is bad at the moment they take them? i bet almost no criminal think of the consequences of their crimes either.

quote:

If one were to fully embrace determinism, one could argue that society should impose the harshest crime of death on all amoral activities in order to override an individual�s instinctual subscription to urges derived from experience and genetics. That by providing enough of an incentive to NOT commit such acts they were previously destined to commit, they are influenced to make the correct �choice.� Or perhaps another alternative is to forcefully MAKE individuals have the correct experiences such that their �choices� are stacked towards making the correct ones. Of course, we�ll still have to use that ever-useful eugenics program to weed out the individuals who are genetically predisposed towards the incorrect choices regardless of how much conditioning they get from experience.

okay i have the perfect solution to this, society should adopt death sentence on all crimes, few people would then dare to do anything, but still there should be people doing crimes, so the ones that do crimes will in secrecy not be killed they will be in some secret society somewhere where they are taken care of. Everyone thinks that it is death sentence, but there really isn't, so booth parts are taken care of, both the detterent and the take care of the ones that cannot take care of themselves...

and seriously if we had the knowledges to see in ones genes in which way they would go in life, i cannot see any wrong in using that and taking care of those people from the beginning.

quote:

At either rate, even if we fully embrace determinism, most philosophical arguments for determinism still call for societal punishment and accountability. When a person is making a decision, the person knows, more or less, which ones are the "good" ones and which ones are the "bad" ones although there are no absolute definitions. When an immoral act is committed, it is up to society to accuse and deal with those who are immoral. Be this with whatever punishment is deemed appropriate. How can this be justified in the view that the accused did not have a choice? Well guess what, we too do not have a choice when we accuse and trial them. One cannot embrace determinism in the individual and put society above that standard. We all pay fully for all of our actions, and social retributions are part of that. Morality and immorality are our constructs with which we do as we please, and they are no more solid that the accusation that a person has broke them but nonetheless, they have made a decision that other living beings do not wish him to have made. It is this, the decision that others do not want you to make, that is the basic definition of morality. Pressure, justice and ethics are all moral methods of regulating the methods that people choose to execute whether or not it was their "real" choice or not. The long term consequences are important all the time, and it is moral that individuals in a society seek their own protection through a justice system. Whether or not a person chooses his own actions, it is still just to determine whether it was moral or immoral, whether they wanted to do it or not. Morals are what we consider as a result of our actions. Immoral actions are just that, actions. When a person makes actions they make themselves answerable to moral questioning and justice.

yes i agree that there must be punishments and awards in a society. BUT there is no proofs that harsh punishments leads to less crimes. i mean there are countries where you cut of ones hands for a simple theft, meanwhile you in for example sweden only would get a fine for that, but there is not more thefts in sweden than in those countries, more of the opposite actually. Or US has death penalty, europe got not, still europe got less murders than US. harsh punishments isn't the solution to everything...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yes i agree that there must be punishments and awards in a society. BUT there is no proofs that harsh punishments leads to less crimes. i mean there are countries where you cut of ones hands for a simple theft, meanwhile you in for example sweden only would get a fine for that, but there is not more thefts in sweden than in those countries, more of the opposite actually. Or US has death penalty, europe got not, still europe got less murders than US. harsh punishments isn't the solution to everything...

C'mon St_Andrew you know that to look at (Euro) Swedish vs American society is beyond simplistic. In Sweden you have an almost homogenous society compared to in America, a strong social welfare state, a similarly shared cultural background among most of the people. The opposite exists in America. There are numerous other social factors at work here that is ignored. Too many Europeans tend to look at America vis a vis Europe, which I feel is incorrect. Not having the death penalty in Europe may work for you, but that doesn't mean that the same is applicable in America. I am no fan of the death penalty but how often in Europe do you hear of a child being killed in a drive by shooting by a bunch of drug dealers in an inner city ghetto. I know because I have lived in and seen that setting. Maybe the access to guns should be limited but how do you begin that process with so much illegal firearms available and besides that is a whole other issue.

P.S. You and Occ are really racking the discussions up, damn.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan C'mon St_Andrew you know that to look at (Euro) Swedish vs American society is beyond simplistic. In Sweden you have an almost homogenous society compared to in America, a strong social welfare state, a similarly shared cultural background among most of the people. The opposite exists in America. There are numerous other social factors at work here that is ignored. Too many Europeans tend to look at America vis a vis Europe, which I feel is incorrect. Not having the death penalty in Europe may work for you, but that doesn't mean that the same is applicable in America. I am no fan of the death penalty but how often in Europe do you hear of a child being killed in a drive by shooting by a bunch of drug dealers in an inner city ghetto. I know because I have lived in and seen that setting. Maybe the access to guns should be limited but how do you begin that process with so much illegal firearms available and besides that is a whole other issue.

no i know that =) i should have been clearer but i said "harsh punishments isn't the solution to everything..." by that i mean that there is better ways of dealing with the problems then just the punishments, like welfare for example...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.