... at least some truth that is objective (ie. true in all places, at all times, for all people).
Just as a matter of clarification `objectively true,' when talking about moral judgements, does not mean `true in all places, at all times, for all people.' In moral philosophy, this is what `absolute' truth means.
`Objectively true,' on the other hand, simply means that there exist standards upon which everyone does or should reasonably agree for determining the truth of any statement in its domain.
This is all quite true, but that is the very nature of volunteer work. What the poster to whom I was replying was asking for is tantamount to asking for a job -- and that was my original point, perhaps unclearly implied.
There is very little difference between feeding and clothing a volunteer and simply hiring them. That is typically what NGOs do; hire people to do the work. But that isn't the model that volunteer organisations work under -- they take the time that people donate. One doesn't pay for donations.
If what the poster to whom I was replying meant to criticise was the model, then he should have done so. I took him to be saying something like "Don't ask me to volunteer. You should hire me and get me 40 hours a week." Well, that _is_ fair enough, I suppose, but he's asking the wrong people for a job -- they want people to volunteer.
> I think what he's asking is perfectly reasonable. > If nobody tends to his basic needs, he either has to: > > 1) Starve and rot > 2) Get a job, siphoning off 40 or more hours each week.
I'm afraid I disagree; the question he is asking isn't reasonable (as it presumes that this have never been addressed before) and your analysis of it is incomplete as it seems to presume that these are the only two alternatives).
He could do what many hundreds of thousands of volunteers do each year: he could save his money while he is working so that he could take the time off to volunteer and support himself doing it.
No one said that volunteeerism at this level was for the faint of heart.
Of course, volunteering locally is a different matter.
Well, I suppose that some organisation might be willing to clothe, feed, house, and educate you in exchange for your service. But we'd probably call you a solider, sailor, or airman rather than a volunteer.
I suspect you are missing the point of volunteerism.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up. This is exactly right and the heart of the 'problem of intelligent design'.
There is an ass in one of the photos. I guess powertools really are your friend.
Just as a matter of clarification `objectively true,' when talking about moral judgements, does not mean `true in all places, at all times, for all people.' In moral philosophy, this is what `absolute' truth means. `Objectively true,' on the other hand, simply means that there exist standards upon which everyone does or should reasonably agree for determining the truth of any statement in its domain.
This is all quite true, but that is the very nature of volunteer work. What the poster to whom I was replying was asking for is tantamount to asking for a job -- and that was my original point, perhaps unclearly implied.
There is very little difference between feeding and clothing a volunteer and simply hiring them. That is typically what NGOs do; hire people to do the work. But that isn't the model that volunteer organisations work under -- they take the time that people donate. One doesn't pay for donations.
If what the poster to whom I was replying meant to criticise was the model, then he should have done so. I took him to be saying something like "Don't ask me to volunteer. You should hire me and get me 40 hours a week." Well, that _is_ fair enough, I suppose, but he's asking the wrong people for a job -- they want people to volunteer.
Cheers,
Norm Gall
> I think what he's asking is perfectly reasonable.
> If nobody tends to his basic needs, he either has to:
>
> 1) Starve and rot
> 2) Get a job, siphoning off 40 or more hours each week.
I'm afraid I disagree; the question he is asking isn't reasonable (as it presumes that this have never been addressed before) and your analysis of it is incomplete as it seems to presume that these are the only two alternatives).
He could do what many hundreds of thousands of volunteers do each year: he could save his money while he is working so that he could take the time off to volunteer and support himself doing it.
No one said that volunteeerism at this level was for the faint of heart.
Of course, volunteering locally is a different matter.
Well, I suppose that some organisation might be willing to clothe, feed, house, and educate you in exchange for your service. But we'd probably call you a solider, sailor, or airman rather than a volunteer.
I suspect you are missing the point of volunteerism.