Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects. When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on. How does it feel to be running 30 year old technology, grandpa?
Everyone knows electric cars are the future (which F1 even begrudgingly admits by requiring hybrids), and instead of meeting that future head on like Formula E, F1 totters along, and will contribute nothing to the future of racing.
That gets dicey, from everything to perpetual war (thank god the last depression reeled in our Middle East adventures) to reexamining drug laws after 40 years of paying for prisons for the drug war. If it weren't for market assumptions, that madness might have never ended.
Besides, this is the same lie that was told regarding the lack of prosecution for the banking scandals, while accepting million dollar fines for billion dollar frauds, yet there is absolutely no problem in finding the 2.7 million per prisoner to keep Guantanamo open. It's handing waving away the problem, as that is much more media friendly than a simple fuck you, we'll do what we want.
I had contemplated a system like this to make the judiciary more equitable (other ideas include collecting all money to be spent on a court case to be divided equally between the parties- you are spending money for the decision, not to increase your chances of winning), and ultimately had to discard it as it seemed to favor increased lawlessness among the poor (if you have essentially no money, you can commit crimes with impunity as there is little cost). You could make up a hybrid system of an equal chance at paying a percentage of income or a fine, but I don't think it would work that well.
I lean more towards doing away with fines altogether (no more making law enforcement a part of tax collection) and making all penalties jail time or community service. Would be a good reason to get revenue generating laws off the books, and the imposition on both the poor and rich are about equal. And if the deed isn't serious enough to deserve some time in jail, it probably shouldn't be enforced anyway.
Not that I doubt specifically, but here's my problem:
If what you say is true, we wouldn't have the problems with the patent system that we have now. It should be mostly self-regulatory, with less trivialness since companies have an interest in each other's patents. This is clearly not the case, and as you can point to Apple or Microsoft, I can point to drug and agricultural companies that effectively pursue perpetual patents. Not all patents are created equal, and if you hold the keys to a cash cow, or a DNA sequence, that alone is worth more than any benefit from cross licensing. Prilosec earned over a billion dollars yearly while its patent was active. Now it earns about $300 million. And that's just one drug.
Not to mention you already stated patent has only been extended through treaty, and yet here we are with another treaty in the wings which no one wants to disclose the terms of, and would all but put any patent reform out of the reach of the courts or congress.
You're not even a little bit fearful that "patent reform" isn't doublespeak for bringing patents more inline with copyrights or some such nonsense?
Call me paranoid, but with the secrecy of TPP still lingering in the wings, I don't really trust Congress to approach this sanely, We may have a sudden outbreak of common sense, but I trust that more to come from the courts than lawmakers at this point.
Or after a decade of neglect, releasing Space Hulk 3rd edition, only to release 4th edition 5 years later, but making the sets incompatible, and offering no way for people who supported them with the 3rd edition to upgrade, making it orphaned to expansions.
Fuck them to the bowels of hell. Such arrogance to their customers.
Don't even get me started with what they did with Blood Bowl.
But it's not just popularity; it's relationships, and still the data used is flawed.
Last FM genre tags aren't the most comprehensive (hence music nerds can get into endless debates about whether a band represents this genre or that genre), and it also assumes influence comes within the realm of popular music, and not less popular forms that get co-opted into pop music, and how those less popular lineages developed (as the trope goes, someone like the Sex Pistols never sold many albums, but what albums they did sell ended up in the hands of people who started more popular bands).
More importantly, this study shows the flaws with quantitative vs. qualitative analysis; using the less descriptive measure as definitive just because it is supposedly "objective", and basically ignoring all other data that doesn't fit the model. They've proved they can measure what they set out to measure, nothing more. This has been most egregious in the soft sciences, like psychology, that tries so very hard to quantify data in an attempt at being definitive, and end up making absurd associations as that isn't the most useful analysis of the data on hand. Some music historians would have been able to point out the obvious flaws (like the progression of the Beatles throughout their history. Twist and Shout is miles away from Revolution #9).
No, actually my complaint with Prometheus was that it was poor storytelling across the board. It seemed to purposely tell half a story in an attempt to hide this under the guise of interpretation, or possibly a Prometheus Mark II.
It may be I am like those naysayers that panned Blade Runner upon release, and only some time after have come to see its true merit, but I don't think so. At least with Blade Runner there were reasons to view it multiple times, and that definitely can't be said for Prometheus.
Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending).
Not really.
The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.
As far as re-offending-
The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crime in prison than outside.
So what do you do with a person with a life sentence who rapes/kills another prisoner? You have already invoked the worst punishment your scenario allows, and it has failed.
And what of the safety of the other prisoners? Is the state not obliged to keep them safe from further crime? The death penalty ends all future recidivism from this individual permanently.
(It should be noted I generally oppose the death penalty, but as a practical matter understand that it is, and should be, a method of last resort).
Oh, and the conflating with abortion? Pure ideological claptrap.
But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.
Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.
Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).
So what options do you have left?
I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.
Promised: Oh wow! That's a pretty shape. I'd buy that. Actual: Uhh, that's nearly as sexy, but if they keep the drive train idea...
Promised: Oh, hey, I drive more than 70 freeway miles a day. This fits my needs better than an all-electric. Actual: How is this better than a diesel VW? But at least they are developing something interesting like the Jaguar C-X75 drive train...
Promised: You know, if it is a series hybrid, I bet you tinker with the car. Simple drive train. Actual: How is this different than a Prius again? If I wanted a Prius...
Promised: a car that actually made me consider a hybrid as suitable to my needs. Actual: I wonder what Honda is doing...
Gosh, if we only had the same consideration for corporations who skip out on taxes. Would you support cutting them off from government services? Answer truthfully now.
No kids, this is an example of the tragedy of the commons looks like. You know, everyone pays in to get fire service, except some folks decide they can free ride something as basic as fire service and got burned.
So don't be putting a decision by a government entity in same class as private fire service. This is not a libertarian paradise, this is the dystopia libertarians complain about.
Here is the thing though- Given were are at an age where war is waged under false pretenses, where we now find out ERT is crock but no one decided to verify until recently, where damn near every event and study has a multitude of spins and talking points: shouldn't we scrutinize everything we read?
And I don't mean in that contrary to be contrary sort of way (but even that sometimes yields useful results), but seriously consider what is being stated, why is it being stated, and who is stating it?
Many years ago, in my physics textbook, it stated that a tire's friction was the same regardless of contact patch. Now being somewhat of a gearhead, this struck me as contrary to everything I've seen. So I questioned my instructor about it with my rationales as to why this is probably incorrect. He hand waves it, and I'm left stumped as to why dragsters have such large rear tires, and a low resistance tire on a bicycle have such a small contact patch.
And you know where this is going, but that is exactly point: mistakes happen, something gets lost in translation, and some people don't give a damn enough to question an idea.
Personally, I blame poor science reporting to the poor knowledge of science by the general public, and the inevitable simplifying that is going to happen to explain what is a foreign country to most people.
I appreciate in these divisive times rhetoric is at an all-time high, but let's look at some facts, shall we?
First, these practices took place with government regulation in place. Two: the current actions of the government coddling... errr, negotiating with the companies may adversely affect the ideal libertarian solution: workers suing the companies directly. Three: if the end result is companies not admitting wrongdoing and a government who failed to stop the practice in the first place now promising that not pursuing legal action will halt such practices in the future, I'd rather take my chances on the free market solution.
Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.
It would seem that at the beginning of the trial, if both the plaintiff and defendant would throw the sum total of funds to be spent into a common pot (to be split equally among them for their court cost), then the amount paid would be the cost at arriving at a _judgement_ instead of paying more to win the case.
Tell me: is this becoming mentally unstable and unable to cope interacting with society or not? I mean becoming unstable in one's solitude is one thing; becoming unstable when society intrudes on your solitude is quite another.
Further, are you differentiating between chosen solitude and enforced solitude, because those would have very different effects.
Finally, his is social within the confines of his family. Social has many different dimensions. To pick and choose which aspects you want to interact with seems damn near idealized to me.
It sounds more like you are advocating for social convention hiding behind psychology. Epicurus would like to have a word with you.
Every decision you make has the net effect of limiting some options and expanding others... I see no reason why drugs should be a special case.
I do however see grave danger in people deciding for you that some substances are too dangerous for you to make a decision about (which, I might add, is antithetical to the very concept of freedom).
So when a black man dares to commit a crime against a white person, he should get 50 lashings on top of his beheading for daring to intimate a white man.
And should someone of a lessor stock get uppity with their superiors, more jail time to send a clear message that this terrorism will not be tolerated!
So you advocate prioritizing things that have a potential to harm above other crimes that already have victims?
Children aside (and quite honestly, fuck the children), the fact remains that if I did speed and no one got hurt, exactly what is basis for it to be a crime? It is a little premature to place the tag of "potential child killer" on someone who simply has a lead foot, especially given the millions of times that law is broken everyday without a string of children bodies littering the highways.
And if people would stop killing and raping, the cops would have the man-hours to help little old ladies cross the street.
In a very real sense, you trivialize victims of violent crimes.
Your logic dictates everyone should be in jail because there is always the potential for harm.
I would argue committing seppuku goes against any biological imperative. Indeed, not taking the moral obligation (as defined in the terms of the culture) as seriously would afford a better chance of passing on one's genes. While it is first and foremost a cognitive act, in this context, it cannot escape its moral element. It is adherence to a moral (perhaps cultural) belief sans self-interest. You observations concerning don't seem to really apply.
I have never witnessed an animal specifically give up its life for what it believed to be true, or sacrifice its life (exception being mothers) for another. While this may be true, since it is impossible to determine one way or another, the point is moot. Noble savage aside, it is conjecture.
Certainly nearly everything has a biological first cause, but if the environment doesn't allow for expression of that trait, what does it matter? Further, the environment certainly actively shapes biological impulses, perhaps to a point where they are far removed (and perhaps contradictory) from the intent (whatever that may be).
I submit I understand my own mind better than I understand my cats':)
Most morality could be argued as agents of its intents, and people tools thereof. As any tool can be used for good or bad, there is really no a priori value judgment per se (short of it being a good tool for its purpose).
The human mind is very much its own tool. Who is the user?
Why would a person consider suicide at a loss of face? Why would someone give up all sexuality and wealth in order to commune with the divine? Are these things moral? Can they be explained by biology?
It is fine and good to reference morality in terms which seemingly benefit others (noting that it is impossible to understand why an animal is acting in a particular fashion. If your morality is ends oriented, this is fine. If not, you've given examples of something perhaps acting compassionately, not morally), but in my mind's eye this is akin to claiming (per your examples) a ventilator or a smoke detector moral.
Granted, a goodish portion of morality today seems defined by getting a desired outcome, and justifying the means. And reek of amoralness.
There are philosophical systems in which the actor my act against the will/benefit of society and still be considered moral. Soft fuzzy feelings or that knot in your stomach don't enter the equation at all.
Per my own ill-defined sense of right and wrong, most moral decisions are necessarily high-level cognitive acts of choosing. If there is no ability to choose, you lack the capacity to act immorally or morally. If you fail to consider your choice, you are acting as an automaton and have relinquished your opportunity to see where your morals really lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects. When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on. How does it feel to be running 30 year old technology, grandpa?
Everyone knows electric cars are the future (which F1 even begrudgingly admits by requiring hybrids), and instead of meeting that future head on like Formula E, F1 totters along, and will contribute nothing to the future of racing.
That, sir, is old and busted.
That gets dicey, from everything to perpetual war (thank god the last depression reeled in our Middle East adventures) to reexamining drug laws after 40 years of paying for prisons for the drug war. If it weren't for market assumptions, that madness might have never ended.
Besides, this is the same lie that was told regarding the lack of prosecution for the banking scandals, while accepting million dollar fines for billion dollar frauds, yet there is absolutely no problem in finding the 2.7 million per prisoner to keep Guantanamo open. It's handing waving away the problem, as that is much more media friendly than a simple fuck you, we'll do what we want.
I had contemplated a system like this to make the judiciary more equitable (other ideas include collecting all money to be spent on a court case to be divided equally between the parties- you are spending money for the decision, not to increase your chances of winning), and ultimately had to discard it as it seemed to favor increased lawlessness among the poor (if you have essentially no money, you can commit crimes with impunity as there is little cost). You could make up a hybrid system of an equal chance at paying a percentage of income or a fine, but I don't think it would work that well.
I lean more towards doing away with fines altogether (no more making law enforcement a part of tax collection) and making all penalties jail time or community service. Would be a good reason to get revenue generating laws off the books, and the imposition on both the poor and rich are about equal. And if the deed isn't serious enough to deserve some time in jail, it probably shouldn't be enforced anyway.
Not that I doubt specifically, but here's my problem:
If what you say is true, we wouldn't have the problems with the patent system that we have now. It should be mostly self-regulatory, with less trivialness since companies have an interest in each other's patents. This is clearly not the case, and as you can point to Apple or Microsoft, I can point to drug and agricultural companies that effectively pursue perpetual patents. Not all patents are created equal, and if you hold the keys to a cash cow, or a DNA sequence, that alone is worth more than any benefit from cross licensing. Prilosec earned over a billion dollars yearly while its patent was active. Now it earns about $300 million. And that's just one drug.
Not to mention you already stated patent has only been extended through treaty, and yet here we are with another treaty in the wings which no one wants to disclose the terms of, and would all but put any patent reform out of the reach of the courts or congress.
That should give everyone a moment of pause.
You're not even a little bit fearful that "patent reform" isn't doublespeak for bringing patents more inline with copyrights or some such nonsense?
Call me paranoid, but with the secrecy of TPP still lingering in the wings, I don't really trust Congress to approach this sanely, We may have a sudden outbreak of common sense, but I trust that more to come from the courts than lawmakers at this point.
Sad but true.
Or after a decade of neglect, releasing Space Hulk 3rd edition, only to release 4th edition 5 years later, but making the sets incompatible, and offering no way for people who supported them with the 3rd edition to upgrade, making it orphaned to expansions.
Fuck them to the bowels of hell. Such arrogance to their customers.
Don't even get me started with what they did with Blood Bowl.
Ugh!
But it's not just popularity; it's relationships, and still the data used is flawed.
Last FM genre tags aren't the most comprehensive (hence music nerds can get into endless debates about whether a band represents this genre or that genre), and it also assumes influence comes within the realm of popular music, and not less popular forms that get co-opted into pop music, and how those less popular lineages developed (as the trope goes, someone like the Sex Pistols never sold many albums, but what albums they did sell ended up in the hands of people who started more popular bands).
More importantly, this study shows the flaws with quantitative vs. qualitative analysis; using the less descriptive measure as definitive just because it is supposedly "objective", and basically ignoring all other data that doesn't fit the model. They've proved they can measure what they set out to measure, nothing more. This has been most egregious in the soft sciences, like psychology, that tries so very hard to quantify data in an attempt at being definitive, and end up making absurd associations as that isn't the most useful analysis of the data on hand. Some music historians would have been able to point out the obvious flaws (like the progression of the Beatles throughout their history. Twist and Shout is miles away from Revolution #9).
No, actually my complaint with Prometheus was that it was poor storytelling across the board. It seemed to purposely tell half a story in an attempt to hide this under the guise of interpretation, or possibly a Prometheus Mark II.
It may be I am like those naysayers that panned Blade Runner upon release, and only some time after have come to see its true merit, but I don't think so. At least with Blade Runner there were reasons to view it multiple times, and that definitely can't be said for Prometheus.
Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending).
Not really.
The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.
As far as re-offending-
The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crime in prison than outside.
So what do you do with a person with a life sentence who rapes/kills another prisoner? You have already invoked the worst punishment your scenario allows, and it has failed.
And what of the safety of the other prisoners? Is the state not obliged to keep them safe from further crime? The death penalty ends all future recidivism from this individual permanently.
(It should be noted I generally oppose the death penalty, but as a practical matter understand that it is, and should be, a method of last resort).
Oh, and the conflating with abortion? Pure ideological claptrap.
But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.
Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.
Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).
So what options do you have left?
I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.
So the Sabbath reunion is underway?
Kewl.
Evolution of the Volt as seen by me.
Promised: Oh wow! That's a pretty shape. I'd buy that.
Actual: Uhh, that's nearly as sexy, but if they keep the drive train idea...
Promised: Oh, hey, I drive more than 70 freeway miles a day. This fits my needs better than an all-electric.
Actual: How is this better than a diesel VW? But at least they are developing something interesting like the Jaguar C-X75 drive train...
Promised: You know, if it is a series hybrid, I bet you tinker with the car. Simple drive train.
Actual: How is this different than a Prius again? If I wanted a Prius...
Promised: a car that actually made me consider a hybrid as suitable to my needs.
Actual: I wonder what Honda is doing...
Gosh, if we only had the same consideration for corporations who skip out on taxes. Would you support cutting them off from government services? Answer truthfully now.
No kids, this is an example of the tragedy of the commons looks like. You know, everyone pays in to get fire service, except some folks decide they can free ride something as basic as fire service and got burned.
So don't be putting a decision by a government entity in same class as private fire service. This is not a libertarian paradise, this is the dystopia libertarians complain about.
I have long advocated sortition (choosing positions in government through lottery).
It appears now there is some research to justify this.
Here is the thing though- Given were are at an age where war is waged under false pretenses, where we now find out ERT is crock but no one decided to verify until recently, where damn near every event and study has a multitude of spins and talking points: shouldn't we scrutinize everything we read?
And I don't mean in that contrary to be contrary sort of way (but even that sometimes yields useful results), but seriously consider what is being stated, why is it being stated, and who is stating it?
Many years ago, in my physics textbook, it stated that a tire's friction was the same regardless of contact patch. Now being somewhat of a gearhead, this struck me as contrary to everything I've seen. So I questioned my instructor about it with my rationales as to why this is probably incorrect. He hand waves it, and I'm left stumped as to why dragsters have such large rear tires, and a low resistance tire on a bicycle have such a small contact patch.
And you know where this is going, but that is exactly point: mistakes happen, something gets lost in translation, and some people don't give a damn enough to question an idea.
Personally, I blame poor science reporting to the poor knowledge of science by the general public, and the inevitable simplifying that is going to happen to explain what is a foreign country to most people.
Dear sir,
I appreciate in these divisive times rhetoric is at an all-time high, but let's look at some facts, shall we?
First, these practices took place with government regulation in place. Two: the current actions of the government coddling... errr, negotiating with the companies may adversely affect the ideal libertarian solution: workers suing the companies directly. Three: if the end result is companies not admitting wrongdoing and a government who failed to stop the practice in the first place now promising that not pursuing legal action will halt such practices in the future, I'd rather take my chances on the free market solution.
Back before I knew such things existed in nature, I had the idea of hopefully causing a fuel/air explosion with a regular tornado.
The idea was to pump a bunch of fuel into a regular tornado and ignite it, theoretically causing the tornado to dissipate.
Unfortunately a lack of funds and people brave enough to man the trebuchets kept me from my plan.
But it just seems more _eventful_ than a lazy susan and lighter fluid.
Yes, my house insurance has extra coverage.
Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.
It would seem that at the beginning of the trial, if both the plaintiff and defendant would throw the sum total of funds to be spent into a common pot (to be split equally among them for their court cost), then the amount paid would be the cost at arriving at a _judgement_ instead of paying more to win the case.
Tell me: is this becoming mentally unstable and unable to cope interacting with society or not? I mean becoming unstable in one's solitude is one thing; becoming unstable when society intrudes on your solitude is quite another.
Further, are you differentiating between chosen solitude and enforced solitude, because those would have very different effects.
Finally, his is social within the confines of his family. Social has many different dimensions. To pick and choose which aspects you want to interact with seems damn near idealized to me.
It sounds more like you are advocating for social convention hiding behind psychology. Epicurus would like to have a word with you.
Every decision you make has the net effect of limiting some options and expanding others... I see no reason why drugs should be a special case.
I do however see grave danger in people deciding for you that some substances are too dangerous for you to make a decision about (which, I might add, is antithetical to the very concept of freedom).
I'd also point out the Rat Park Experiments and Guide to Licit and Illicit Drugs and suggest that current policies of prohibition do much to exacerbate the drug problem.
I get it.
So when a black man dares to commit a crime against a white person, he should get 50 lashings on top of his beheading for daring to intimate a white man.
And should someone of a lessor stock get uppity with their superiors, more jail time to send a clear message that this terrorism will not be tolerated!
</sarcasm>
Taxes.
So you advocate prioritizing things that have a potential to harm above other crimes that already have victims?
Children aside (and quite honestly, fuck the children), the fact remains that if I did speed and no one got hurt, exactly what is basis for it to be a crime? It is a little premature to place the tag of "potential child killer" on someone who simply has a lead foot, especially given the millions of times that law is broken everyday without a string of children bodies littering the highways.
And if people would stop killing and raping, the cops would have the man-hours to help little old ladies cross the street.
In a very real sense, you trivialize victims of violent crimes.
Your logic dictates everyone should be in jail because there is always the potential for harm.
I'd rather not.
I would argue committing seppuku goes against any biological imperative. Indeed, not taking the moral obligation (as defined in the terms of the culture) as seriously would afford a better chance of passing on one's genes. While it is first and foremost a cognitive act, in this context, it cannot escape its moral element. It is adherence to a moral (perhaps cultural) belief sans self-interest. You observations concerning don't seem to really apply.
:)
I have never witnessed an animal specifically give up its life for what it believed to be true, or sacrifice its life (exception being mothers) for another. While this may be true, since it is impossible to determine one way or another, the point is moot. Noble savage aside, it is conjecture.
Certainly nearly everything has a biological first cause, but if the environment doesn't allow for expression of that trait, what does it matter? Further, the environment certainly actively shapes biological impulses, perhaps to a point where they are far removed (and perhaps contradictory) from the intent (whatever that may be).
I submit I understand my own mind better than I understand my cats'
Most morality could be argued as agents of its intents, and people tools thereof. As any tool can be used for good or bad, there is really no a priori value judgment per se (short of it being a good tool for its purpose).
The human mind is very much its own tool. Who is the user?
While I respect your points...
Why would a person consider suicide at a loss of face? Why would someone give up all sexuality and wealth in order to commune with the divine? Are these things moral? Can they be explained by biology?
It is fine and good to reference morality in terms which seemingly benefit others (noting that it is impossible to understand why an animal is acting in a particular fashion. If your morality is ends oriented, this is fine. If not, you've given examples of something perhaps acting compassionately, not morally), but in my mind's eye this is akin to claiming (per your examples) a ventilator or a smoke detector moral.
Granted, a goodish portion of morality today seems defined by getting a desired outcome, and justifying the means. And reek of amoralness.
There are philosophical systems in which the actor my act against the will/benefit of society and still be considered moral. Soft fuzzy feelings or that knot in your stomach don't enter the equation at all.
Per my own ill-defined sense of right and wrong, most moral decisions are necessarily high-level cognitive acts of choosing. If there is no ability to choose, you lack the capacity to act immorally or morally. If you fail to consider your choice, you are acting as an automaton and have relinquished your opportunity to see where your morals really lie.