Perhaps the GP did not make his point too clear? There is no absolute moral compass. Everybody has a personal moral compass, but they don't point in the same direction for a simple reason. Morals are not absolute, they are acquired through education and are dependent on the cultural environment in which one lives.
Actually that is what I thought he meant at first, and what his later reply seems to confirm. This is what I quarrel with. Either there is exactly one set of correct morals or there is none and hence there is no compelling reason to care one way or the other. It leads directly to contradiction to say that morals are relative. Morals make statements about what one ought or ought not do. A relative moral system leads allows us to say that one ought to do X and one ought not to do X, at the same time and in the same sense. This is contradiction.
Note that I do not say it is easy or even necessarily possible for man to know right and wrong completely or certainly in all cases.
Take Christianity for instance: burning people for having a different belief system (witches, cathari, or other types of heretics) was 'right' in the Middle Ages, but wrong both before and after that period - an absolute moral compass would have to had backflipped quite a bit throughout history. And this is only in Christian culture - shocking as it might come to people like the author of this post [slashdot.org] up this thread, there are other cultures as well - which have moral systems quite different from Christianity in many cases. And just because someone says their system is the better/only/true one does not make it automatically true, be it the Pope ot some average joe on/.
Just because a "moral compass" is absolute does not mean it is correct. Christians who have acted wrongly through history do not prove that morality is not absolute. They just prove that Christians do not necessarily act morally.
Now, as to why people give a shit, it's because their personal moral compass. However, you might want to make a distinction between people who say 'this is wrong from my perspective' and the ones who say 'this is wrong, period.' The first cathegory can potentially realize that their moral system is imperfect and use their own judgement to adjust it; the second one, believing that what they have as moral code is the absolute truth, will be a lot less likely to allow changes to it. Also, the first cathegory of people will be a lot less likely to burn anyone at stake due to mismatching moral systems than the second one, for the same reason.
You can't have it both ways. If you think it worthwhile to realize my moral system is imperfect and that it might need adjustment, then you are saying that some moral systems are better than others. That is an absolute statement about morals. By the way, I fully realize that my moral system is imperfect. I don't always do the right thing even when I know what it is. I don't have any illusion about always being able to know perfectly what is right.
I would lay the blame on those who teach morals without emphasizing their relativeness. It is funny how you can trace this to the same type of fundamentalists who believe everything else (science, that is; other religions should probably be outright banned) should be taught as relative, but their particular brand of faith is the absolute truth. Makes one wonder what type of controversy is compatible with an attitude of 'everyone should be equal, but we should be more equal than others.'
I'm not going to get caught up in defending goofy religious nuts. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Relative morals as an idea is not even self-consistent. "Morals are relative" is an absolute statement about morals. You do the math.
On the other hand, having to assume responsability
By moral compass I mean a magical thing which is endowed upon a person by the holy ghost, and gives them the ability to divine what god wants them to do. If you believe this then you cannot be wrong, and anyone who disagrees is an agent (possibly unwittingly) of the devil.
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying, I think. I thought you were denying the existence of right and wrong itself.
I too look suspiciously on anyone who thinks he knows what God wants at all times and in all circumstances. However, I think there are circumstances in which we can decide what is right and what is wrong with certainty. (Hmm...if someone disagrees with that, does that make him an agent of the devil? Nah, just incorrect.;-)
I'm not trying to start a fight or be controversial, but really want to know what you think on this. If there is no moral compass, no right and wrong, then why should anyone give a sh*t about anything? Why is it anything more than personal preference whether Anabaptists, witches, or anyone else is killed?
You know there is a difference between "lawful" and "right", "unlawful" and "wrong" don't you? The judgeS were wrong.
Hmm. The interesting question then is what should a judge do when the law conflicts with what is right? (*) Should he break his promise as a judge to uphold the law? Or perhaps should he resign his position on the bench if doing his duty to the law would force him to make a ruling that is morally wrong?
I would contrast this with the duty of a juror. At least where I live, in most cases a juror has no choice but to serve and to make a decision. Under those circumstances, I claim that a juror must judge the law as well as the facts. I would not vote to convict someone for violating an unjust law. (That is a whole 'nuther topic.)
(*) Yes I know some people do not think that there is any such thing as an objective right and wrong. Ptuuii on them.;-)
If you think about it hashing your passwords in a database is almost an admittance either that 1) you're database will probably be comprimised or 2) you're users shouldn't trust you. I wonder if it's possible to grep the likes of MySQL's storage files for MD5 hashes (thereby bypassing the databases authentication)?
It is mostly 2). Your users shouldn't trust you, nor should you trust yourself, unless "you" is truly a single person. Any system that has users logging into it is probably accessible to multiple insiders. Having cleartext passwords in the database opens up the evil possibility of an insider stealing passwords and impersonating the real user. Now maybe that would not be a big deal on SlashDot, but on a banking or brokerage site...
If a site can give you your forgotten password (as opposed to just resetting it for you), then don't use that site for anything you care to keep secure.
Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1
Not to beat a dead horse on a dead thread, but you seem to think that tax rates under Bush are too low. Well, step up to the plate then, and tell us what tax rates should be in the current economic situation, and why.
If his tax cuts were bad, then should he have pushed for higher rates? How much higher? How much is enough?
My fault for posting hastily...which I am doing again right now.;-)
My point was that the same groups always seem to argue for the same thing (tax rate cuts, tax rate increases especially for upper brackets, etc.). None will commit themselves to a scheme. It is always "taxes are too high" or "the rich don't pay enough taxes."
Of course we don't know the exact optimal tax rate, but I'd vote for a politician with enough balls to make an estimate and stand by it. Instead of always crying "tax cut," he should say "I want to cut tax rates to X" and then I will be satisfied and won't ask again. Let's face it...the tax rates are going to be set at something. We should hear what each candidate thinks that something should be.
As I write this I realize I am probably showing my ignorance again. Some of the flat tax guys and consumption tax guys have given actual rates, I think. But I don't hear anything like that from the mainstream candidates.
I should not have brought up Reagan at all, I guess.
All I was really trying to point out is that there is some optimum set of tax rates (possibly not always the same depending on the specific economic situation) that will produce the most revenue. It is clearly not zero percent or 100 percent.
So, smarty pants, what should our tax rate structure look like, if producing maximum revenue is your goal?
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Tax cuts are a "temporary high" because they must be met by either lower government spending in the future, undoing 1., or higher interests rates and higher interest payments to non-US residents, undoing 2.
Discussion of tax cuts always seem to ignore a crucial factor: the tax rate before the cut. From what information I have been able to gather in my feeble, non-economist research, the tax rate cuts of Reaganomics were followed by an increase in tax revenue. (Reagan spent that and more, but that is another story.)
Anyway, look at it this way. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 0 percent? Zero. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 100 percent? I can guarantee you that tax revenue from my lazy ass would also be zero in that case. If you are trying to maximize revenue, then there is a sweet spot someplace in between. (Whether maximizing revenue should be the goal is also another discussion.)
A serious discussion of taxes must consider what should be the absolute tax rate. Republicans want to lower tax rates? Make them tell you what is their ideal tax rate for each income level. Democrats say tax cuts are irresponsible? Make them tell you what rates for each income level would be appropriate.
Sorry, but I call bullshit here. If you are in charge of the network and you find viruses on it, then it is your job to get rid of them with the minimum data loss possible. Five months loss is not reasonable. Furthermore, it was clear from the original post that the the loss of work was a punishment for the offender, not to ensure the safety of the network.
If having the offender on the network causes too much risk, then fire him. Don't throw away a company asset he spent 5 months creating.
(And making them re-do 5 months worth of work seems to be a good enough incentive)
If you worked for me, you would not get an opportunity to do this a second time. Sanctioning the offender is fine, but costing the company 5 months worth of work is not.
...I think, but rather what kind of game you like. I have never been able to stand puzzle games, because the object is to guess what connections were in the author's mind, regardless of whether they make any sense.
<flamebait>
For that reason, Zork and Myst sucked equally.;-)
</flamebait>
...I have so far found nothing, repeat nothing on the internet to coax me to open up my wallet and spend money to view it. If it is on the internet and worth seeing, somebody has the equivalent for free, and Google knows how to find it.
In fact, with very limited exceptions such as Slashdot, I will not even go through a registration process. I have emailed the NYT to tell them that I did not find their content compelling enough to convince me to register to view it. (They were justifiably unimpressed, and offered to sell me a paper subscription.;-)
I do read all kinds of sites with banner ads. Who knows, maybe someday one will look so interesting that I will click it!
I am not "resorting" to name calling, I am calling this idiot for what he is: an idiot. He is an idiot for how he thinks.
I know it is offtopic, and this thread is too old for my comment to make any difference. But dude, regardless of whether you are making any sense, you sure are being a dick!
...but not someone with the least inclination to look. For example, something like this will find you out very easily:
file * | grep JPEG
Re:Rule Engine Frameworks
on
Jess in Action
·
· Score: 1
have any of the slashdotters used rule-based frameworks for real-life projects?
Back in a previous life (circa 1988), I did a little rule-based "expert system" programming for a major defense contractor using CLIPS, a forward-chaining tool based on the Rete algorithm. The application was to advise users of a particularly arcane computational fluid dynamics program how to set up its myriad input parameters so that the program wouldn't blow up.
So, you honestly accept that as a litmus test for determining whether or not you have the freedom granted by the first amendment?
Geer obviously has his first amendment freedom of speech. He freely published the paper, didn't he? He is not in jail, is he?
Please do not confuse Americans' right under the Constitution to speak freely with an obligation on the part of private parties (like Geer's employer) not to react negatively to our speech. You might be able to convince me that @stake's action was unreasonable, obnoxious, unethical, or even stupid, but never that it has anything to do with Geer's constitutional rights.
Every time some public figure says something that someone disapproves of, we see the First Amendment get trotted out. Stop it!
Re:increased requirement reduces power
on
Practical RDF
·
· Score: 1
My post was a joke, but I'll stand by it anyway. I want more power when running the really *important* programs, like protein-folding simulations and games. No XML or Java required.;-}
Re:Stop the XML madness
on
Practical RDF
·
· Score: 0
And you think this is a bad thing? Muhahahaha, more power!
Let me play the logic cop here: you can't prove a negative.
Ok, I've seen this just one too many times to ignore. It is just not true.
First, whenever someone says something to this effect, they never bother to define just what is a "negative." I think what people usually have in mind is the negation of an existentially quantified statement, like this: There does not exist a natural number X such that X + X = 3. That "negative" can clearly be proven. (Proof left as an exercise for the reader.)
More to the point, I think most people who say "you can't prove a negative" are not really making a statement about logic itself, but rather about the practical problems in gathering evidence from the real universe. Example: In our universe there does not exist a four-legged, horse-like animal with a single horn in the middle of it's head. Proving that statement true or false logically is not possible without gathering more evidence. If we could find an example of such an animal we could prove the statement false. If we rigorously defined "horse-like" and discoved that in our universe for some reason being both horse-like and having a single horn were not possible, then we could prove the statement true.
If you are an able-bodied male US citizen aged 17 to 45, or if you are in the National Guard or Naval Militia, then you a part of a well-regulated militia. See the US Code.
That is what is explicitly recognized in federal law. The actual understanding of the founders was that the militia is in general the "body of the people." Nose around a little and you can find references for that too.
The problem now isn't ethics when it comes to genetic research, as those have been already established.
That's just a little bit bold, don't you think? I don't know what you mean by "established" but if it includes having any general agreement on what is right and wrong on issues like cloning, human genetic manipulation, harvesting stem cells from embryos, etc., then I think you still have a bit of work to do.
On the other hand, if you mean that you have all the answers to ethical questions when it comes to genetic research, then that sounds very much like one of those "strong opinions" you mention later. You'd better be ready to supply very good arguments for your ethics if you expect to be taken seriously.
A third possibility is that you mean that the ethics of genetics has been addressed in academia. I don't pretend to have read the latest journal articles on the subject. However, I will say this: Ethics is a domain for every person. Each of us is responsible for his own ethical decisions, right or wrong. Ceding that responsibility to authority figures, whether scientists or priests, is not good.
The problem is that people representing the religious right stay in power by scaring the prudish masses they represent into taking strong opinions on issues they don't understand.
I'm not in the religious right (I don't think), but I don't consider all of these ethical issues closed. In fact, some of my opinions are a bit tentative, precisely because I don't want to have strong opinions on issues I don't understand.
I suggest that to paint all people who do not approve of everything being done or proposed in genetic research as prudish masses, afraid of Tokyo-destroying monsters, is to prop up a nice strawman just so you can knock it down.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that is what I thought he meant at first, and what his later reply seems to confirm. This is what I quarrel with. Either there is exactly one set of correct morals or there is none and hence there is no compelling reason to care one way or the other. It leads directly to contradiction to say that morals are relative. Morals make statements about what one ought or ought not do. A relative moral system leads allows us to say that one ought to do X and one ought not to do X, at the same time and in the same sense. This is contradiction. Note that I do not say it is easy or even necessarily possible for man to know right and wrong completely or certainly in all cases.
Just because a "moral compass" is absolute does not mean it is correct. Christians who have acted wrongly through history do not prove that morality is not absolute. They just prove that Christians do not necessarily act morally.
You can't have it both ways. If you think it worthwhile to realize my moral system is imperfect and that it might need adjustment, then you are saying that some moral systems are better than others. That is an absolute statement about morals. By the way, I fully realize that my moral system is imperfect. I don't always do the right thing even when I know what it is. I don't have any illusion about always being able to know perfectly what is right.
I'm not going to get caught up in defending goofy religious nuts. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Relative morals as an idea is not even self-consistent. "Morals are relative" is an absolute statement about morals. You do the math.
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying, I think. I thought you were denying the existence of right and wrong itself.
I too look suspiciously on anyone who thinks he knows what God wants at all times and in all circumstances. However, I think there are circumstances in which we can decide what is right and what is wrong with certainty. (Hmm...if someone disagrees with that, does that make him an agent of the devil? Nah, just incorrect.
I'm not trying to start a fight or be controversial, but really want to know what you think on this. If there is no moral compass, no right and wrong, then why should anyone give a sh*t about anything? Why is it anything more than personal preference whether Anabaptists, witches, or anyone else is killed?
I had a ball on Action Quake a few years ago. I so loved the sawed-off double-barrel...
I would contrast this with the duty of a juror. At least where I live, in most cases a juror has no choice but to serve and to make a decision. Under those circumstances, I claim that a juror must judge the law as well as the facts. I would not vote to convict someone for violating an unjust law. (That is a whole 'nuther topic.)
(*) Yes I know some people do not think that there is any such thing as an objective right and wrong. Ptuuii on them. ;-)
It is mostly 2). Your users shouldn't trust you, nor should you trust yourself, unless "you" is truly a single person. Any system that has users logging into it is probably accessible to multiple insiders. Having cleartext passwords in the database opens up the evil possibility of an insider stealing passwords and impersonating the real user. Now maybe that would not be a big deal on SlashDot, but on a banking or brokerage site...
If a site can give you your forgotten password (as opposed to just resetting it for you), then don't use that site for anything you care to keep secure.
If his tax cuts were bad, then should he have pushed for higher rates? How much higher? How much is enough?
My point was that the same groups always seem to argue for the same thing (tax rate cuts, tax rate increases especially for upper brackets, etc.). None will commit themselves to a scheme. It is always "taxes are too high" or "the rich don't pay enough taxes."
Of course we don't know the exact optimal tax rate, but I'd vote for a politician with enough balls to make an estimate and stand by it. Instead of always crying "tax cut," he should say "I want to cut tax rates to X" and then I will be satisfied and won't ask again. Let's face it...the tax rates are going to be set at something. We should hear what each candidate thinks that something should be.
As I write this I realize I am probably showing my ignorance again. Some of the flat tax guys and consumption tax guys have given actual rates, I think. But I don't hear anything like that from the mainstream candidates.
All I was really trying to point out is that there is some optimum set of tax rates (possibly not always the same depending on the specific economic situation) that will produce the most revenue. It is clearly not zero percent or 100 percent.
So, smarty pants, what should our tax rate structure look like, if producing maximum revenue is your goal?
Anyway, look at it this way. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 0 percent? Zero. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 100 percent? I can guarantee you that tax revenue from my lazy ass would also be zero in that case. If you are trying to maximize revenue, then there is a sweet spot someplace in between. (Whether maximizing revenue should be the goal is also another discussion.)
A serious discussion of taxes must consider what should be the absolute tax rate. Republicans want to lower tax rates? Make them tell you what is their ideal tax rate for each income level. Democrats say tax cuts are irresponsible? Make them tell you what rates for each income level would be appropriate.
Second, the 1st Amendment recognizes your right to speak. It does not impose an obligation on anyone to listen.
Ok, sorry, I should probably lighten up. But it just caught me a little wrong this morning. And what the heck, I've got karma to burn. ;-)
If having the offender on the network causes too much risk, then fire him. Don't throw away a company asset he spent 5 months creating.
Duh.
If you worked for me, you would not get an opportunity to do this a second time. Sanctioning the offender is fine, but costing the company 5 months worth of work is not.
<flamebait> For that reason, Zork and Myst sucked equally. ;-)
</flamebait>
In fact, with very limited exceptions such as Slashdot, I will not even go through a registration process. I have emailed the NYT to tell them that I did not find their content compelling enough to convince me to register to view it. (They were justifiably unimpressed, and offered to sell me a paper subscription. ;-)
I do read all kinds of sites with banner ads. Who knows, maybe someday one will look so interesting that I will click it!
Nice, thoughtful rebuttal of dasmegabyte's points. Maybe you should run for office?
file * | grep JPEG
Please do not confuse Americans' right under the Constitution to speak freely with an obligation on the part of private parties (like Geer's employer) not to react negatively to our speech. You might be able to convince me that @stake's action was unreasonable, obnoxious, unethical, or even stupid, but never that it has anything to do with Geer's constitutional rights.
Every time some public figure says something that someone disapproves of, we see the First Amendment get trotted out. Stop it!
My post was a joke, but I'll stand by it anyway. I want more power when running the really *important* programs, like protein-folding simulations and games. No XML or Java required. ;-}
And you think this is a bad thing? Muhahahaha, more power!
First, whenever someone says something to this effect, they never bother to define just what is a "negative." I think what people usually have in mind is the negation of an existentially quantified statement, like this: There does not exist a natural number X such that X + X = 3. That "negative" can clearly be proven. (Proof left as an exercise for the reader.)
More to the point, I think most people who say "you can't prove a negative" are not really making a statement about logic itself, but rather about the practical problems in gathering evidence from the real universe. Example: In our universe there does not exist a four-legged, horse-like animal with a single horn in the middle of it's head. Proving that statement true or false logically is not possible without gathering more evidence. If we could find an example of such an animal we could prove the statement false. If we rigorously defined "horse-like" and discoved that in our universe for some reason being both horse-like and having a single horn were not possible, then we could prove the statement true.
That is what is explicitly recognized in federal law. The actual understanding of the founders was that the militia is in general the "body of the people." Nose around a little and you can find references for that too.
On the other hand, if you mean that you have all the answers to ethical questions when it comes to genetic research, then that sounds very much like one of those "strong opinions" you mention later. You'd better be ready to supply very good arguments for your ethics if you expect to be taken seriously.
A third possibility is that you mean that the ethics of genetics has been addressed in academia. I don't pretend to have read the latest journal articles on the subject. However, I will say this: Ethics is a domain for every person. Each of us is responsible for his own ethical decisions, right or wrong. Ceding that responsibility to authority figures, whether scientists or priests, is not good.
I'm not in the religious right (I don't think), but I don't consider all of these ethical issues closed. In fact, some of my opinions are a bit tentative, precisely because I don't want to have strong opinions on issues I don't understand.I suggest that to paint all people who do not approve of everything being done or proposed in genetic research as prudish masses, afraid of Tokyo-destroying monsters, is to prop up a nice strawman just so you can knock it down.