I'm sorry, but it looks like you just said that acquiring documents in the public interest through the only reasonable means with the purpose of public dissemination at no cost was wrong.
I never said that and that is not what he did. He violated an the acceptable use policy that he agreed to abide by. That is an objective wrong as he agreed to it, unless you are holding the position that his access to the system was illegal to start with, which would be a whole different situation.
The question at hand behind all of this is whether or not the violation of an acceptable use policy warrants the full force of the federal government to come upon you versus something more reasonable, like suspending your access to the system in question? The secondary question is if the answer to the first question is "no," then why did it happen?
"Subjective" and "Subject to conditions" are not the same thing.
Subjective and Objective are technical terms used in discussing moral and ethical conditions. They have nothing to do with subject to conditions, but instead refer to how the moral decision or code is determined. Relativism comes into play, or more specifically subjective relativism.
For example, in the West, it is generally thought that it is morally unacceptable to for say a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. Yet, in many countries, the culture has the marital age at 14 and often the husband is older. In those cultures it is not morally unacceptable, and in fact, the norm. Therefore, you have the same moral issue - sex with a 14 year child that is both morally unacceptable and morally acceptable depending on the culture one lives in. As such, that is not an objective norm, but a subjective norm as it is depends on other factors to make a determination, at least to anybody outside those cultures.
In discussions of morallity and ethics, being subjective is not good or bad, it is simply a descriptive technical term.
Whether something is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong does not change the strength of the wrongness, it is still wrong.
Untrue.
The word "subjectively" can be replaced with "in my opinion" (or "in this person's opinion"). "Subjectively wrong" is so weak an idea that it has little worth beyond investigating mental pathology.
"Objectively wrong" essentially means "demonstrably wrong".
As stated in a different post, there are three types of morality. There is personal morality, which very much is the opinion you refer to and applies only to the individual. There is the group morality and there is societal morality.
However, in all three, things are still subjective. But, the higher up away from the individual you go, the less opinion you have. You shall not kill is a subjective moral statement. There are times when it is morally appropriate and times it is not. Therefore, killining another person is not objectively wrong. However, it is not an opinion, but a societal norm that gives the moral statement its weight. Now, in concientious objector in a war is making a personal moral statement. That is their belief or position and only applies to that individual. As such, it is an opinion, but still carries the same weight as every other morla position on the level of individual morality.
Objectively wrong does not mean demonstrably wrong. Demonstrably wrong implies it has to occur to demonstrate the wrongness. Where as if it is objectively wrong, then it doesn't have to occur. The concept of a just war is an example of demonstrably wrong. You cannot tell if a war is just or not until after it is over and what has been done has been reviewed to determine its status. On the other hand, to define what is and is not a just war would be an excercise in objectivity. So, a statement such as a war that intentionally killed innocents as a way to put pressure on the leadership to submit would not be a just war would be an example of an objective wrong. However, it does not have to be demonstrated to know that.
I think the problem here is that the terms objective and subjective have very specific meanings when used in discussion of morality and ethics. Basically they are technical terms and not the common useage. They are not good or bad or one is better than the other. They simply describe the type of moral condition under discussion and its origen.
I'm not going by Wikipedia. If you're talking about Exodus 20:12, I'm going by the fact that I know what the Hebrew word means, while you apparently don't.
I, too, know what the Hebrew word means and it means simply more than thou shalt not murder. Or are you implying that the Isrealites thought the equivalent of manslaughter was fine and just murder was the problem? In addition Exodus 20:12 is not the only place that has the prohibition against killing, nor is it all in Hebrew.
Regardless, of what the Hebrew word means, the Judea-Christian tradition that arose from it is what the discussion was about.
In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.
No, it does not mean that it means unlawful (as under God's law) killing. Murder would be an example of that, but it goes beyond murder (you can't rely on wikipedia for everything). But even so, the Judea-Christian has been Thou shalt not kill, except in these lawful situations, so killing in and of itself is not wrong, it depends on the reason behind the killing, which makes it subjective. So, either way, it is still subjective.
"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."
This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.
You are free to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it correct. We could put your hypothesis to a test, though and wait and see if the various world religions change to mimic western morality. So far it doesn't appear to be happening.
With regards to the commandments and leviticus and the rest. Well, once the Holy Roman Empire ruled Europe, it is pretty hard to say it was it was wrong to kill because some ancient code said it was instead of the Empire saying that God said it was. From that point, in the West, Church and State were synonymous and morality was was through religion. That morality has been passed down through the generations to today and has nothing to do with whether one agrees with a particular religion or is an atheist. It simply just is.
(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.
* whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
People who are good because of their religion are no more moral or immoral than people who are good based on whatever they base their moral code on. All morality does is set a code for right and wrong behavior and like it or not, if you live in western culture, your morality is based on the same religious myths you deride (although if you are referring to Judea-Christianity, it goes a lot further back than 3 thousand years).
There are three basic moral codes. There is the personal moral code, what the individual fews as right or wrong. There is the group moral code, what the immediate group one finds themself in views as right or wrong (people can be in multiple groups with multiple codes). And there is societies moral code, which is what society has deemed right or wrong. It is this societal code that has Judea-Christian roots in the West.
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
If you're bored and use that energy to play guitar and cook, it will make you happy. But if you watch TV, it may make you happy in the short term, but not in the long term.
One difference is that I can actually create something using a laptop or mobile device while away from home. For example, I have a 10" laptop on which I code Python programs as a hobby while riding a bus to and from work. I can't very well play the guitar or cook in such a situation.
But then you are actually using your 10" laptop for something other than what the study is talking about. Unless, you code Python only when you are bored, that is.
We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very confused and where you have extremists on both sides of the middle.
In summary, when I say 'objective', I don't mean it is "always wrong to....abc" or "always right to.... xyz" - I mean that there's a unknown value or desirability of outcome which is hard or impossible to find out, but nevertheless exists.
Intrinsic is not the same as objective. Intrinsic means by it's very nature it is this way and can never be another. Intrinsic is an internal quality. Objective means that there is some external standard that can be applied to measure it against. If there is no objective or external standard to compare against, then the morals cannot be measured objectively and can only be thought of subjectively.
Whether something is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong does not change the strength of the wrongness, it is still wrong. All it means is that the measure of that wrongness comes from outside the measurer (objective) or inside (subjective) where the mesurer could be the individual, group, society, etc.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that is the general idea. It is somewhat complicated, which is why, the authors of the study should take a philosophy course or two.
How is anything you just wrote relevant to the study presented (bunk as it may be)?
The study said that scientific literacy makes one more ethical. That would mean more likely to follow their moral code. And then they give examples about being able to point out that date rape is wrong. However, recognizing something is a violation of a moral code and not actually violating the moral code are two separate things. Ironically, if one did not know that date rape is wrong, then committing it would not be unethical.
I guess the point I was making is that for people of such high academic standards, you would think that they would know the difference between morals and ethics before publishing a paper that seems to confuse the two.
Or more accurately, what does the GP have against JSTOR's low-ranking IT admin who found the access log when requested? Or the teenage daughter of the manager at JSTOR who passed on the request for that log? Or the MIT janitor who was supposed to lock that storage closet?
Those are the people whose names are going to be named, and whose lives will be ruined when Anonymous lets loose their unbridled vigilante mayhem. Of course, the dear Common Man will loudly praise Anonymous' "justice", and when that IT admin can't get a job, or that teenager's fake nude picture is plastered across her college's website, or that janitor's door is knocked down by a SWAT team responding to a tip about a bombmaker... those are just minor incidents, nowhere near as tragic as putting valid accusations before our dear Saint Swartz.
If their lives are ruined, then it is from the same source that led to his taking his own life and that was the decision makers that chose to treat this like he was public enemy #1 and bring the full weight of the DOJ down on him. That is where your frustration should be aimed, not at the family. Those people that you mention were doing their job and trusted in a system that betrayed them every bit as much as it betrayed him.
And what he did was not anything that reasonably should be considered a crime. A stern talking to was about all he deserved, and it's basically what state prosecutors were seeking before federal prosecutors went batshit crazy on this case.
That's not quite true. What he did was wrong. Did it deserve the full weight of the US government to come down on him? No, it did not, which means that what DOJ, MIT and JSTOR did was a serious abuse of power that ended up with a human being feeling trapped to the point of having no other way out than to take his own life.
So, yes, he was wrong in what he did, but the people involved with this who should really be investigated and held accountable are off scott free.
I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.
The moment you add a qualifier such as "just a laff" (sic), you have shown that morals are not objective. If they were, there would not be a need for a qualifier.
If morals are objective, they are black and white, yes or no. It is wrong to murder somebody is a moral statement. Is it possible to that it would ever not be wrong to murder somebody (murder is different than killing)? However, most things are not black and white. As soon as you have to qualify, you have start down a path of relativism or subjectiveness. In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
Likewise, you will find with most moral codes, there is a lot of subjectivity to it. We raise our children to not tell iies and not call other people names. Why? Because that is part of a moral code that society says should exist. Exist, that is until you enter politics, which somehow, means what is important for our children to learn, is not important enough for adults to actually practice and society, for the most part is okay with that.
Why? Because historically, morality was based, right or wrong, on an external source, religion. Now, it is up to the individual. That means, today, morality can shift on a whim and as such, is no longer objective (as objective as religion could make it, anyway) but only subjective.
"The most unethical people through history has been highly educated."
cherry picking aka anecdotal evidence aka "any number of examples" do not prove any theory. On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:
Einstein
p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?
Attila the Hun, by all accounts, was a very ethical person. He had a different moral code than what we have today, but evidently was very consistent in following it. That doesn't make him unethical. If he hadn't followed his moral code, then he would be unethical.
A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.
There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.
Of course, we all know, for the human male there is only so much they can be endowed with. You have to choose which head gets endowed, so to speak. It is by far the rarest of exception to be endowed both in reasoning ability and sexual prowness. And, any males that disagree are just showing they weren't as endowed in reasoning ability as they thought.
Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?
(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)
Critical thinking has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics deals with how well one follows a moral code. There are ethical critical thinkers and unethical critical thinkers. There are ethical simpletons and unethical simpletons. It has no bearing on ones intelligence, just one's morals and a willingness to follow them.
Maybe those scientifically literate folks should take a philosophy course or two. In doing so, they might find that morality deals with things like right and wrong and ethics with how well you follow a moral code.
A moral person has some sort of code to help them do the right thing. An ethical person follows their moral code. Now we may argue over the merits of their moral code, but that does not change whether or not they are ethical. Likewise, we cannot argue over how ethical somebody's actions are without knowing their moral code.
Since we live in a society, their is an implied moral code and theirfore we judge one's behaviour as ethical or not based on that implied moral code. But in practice, the implied moral code comes up short. What is ethical for a lawyer is often very different than what is ethical for a medical researcher which is often very different for a judge or a grade school student or business.
Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society. Today, that is not the case, and morality is what the individual says it is. Not that we should go back to religion based morals, but leaving it solely up to the individual is dangerous for a society, too. Sex between an adult and a young teenager is morally wrong in the West, and yet, in many parts of the world, is the norm. Whose moral code is correct? More importantly, is it morally correct for either view to force their view on the other culture?
Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.
But, since we don't live in the 23rd century and must muddle through this ourselves. The relativism of the 21st century makes it next to impossible to determine ethical behaviour as the morals that one would use to base that judgement on are no longer objective, but subjective.
Maybe the scientifically literate, should ponder that.
The internals might be PC architecture, but Sony is going to make damned sure there's lots preventing you from running these games on a PC.
Please elaborate on these "lots". How is Sony going to prevent licensed developers from taking their own games, which are already ported to very PC-like hardware, and making PC ports available through Steam on the PC? And what is Sony going to do to attract PS4 ports of games originally developed for the PC?
Both Macs and Windows use PC architecture computers, and yet, I cannot run most Mac software on my Windows PC and vice versa. I can run Linux on both, but I can't run software designed for either on Linux. Software compatability is a lot more involved than the underlying hardware.
If PlayStation 4 is moving to a PC architecture, then what's the point of buying a PlayStation 4 over a home theater PC running a less-closed operating system such as Windows 8 or GNU/Linux?
Maybe because you want to play PS4 games? Apple moved to a PC architecture and people still purchase their products instead of a home theater PC or Windows 8 or GNU/Linux. Probably because they want to run OS X.
By the way, exactly how is running Windows 8 any less closed than running a Playstation?
Yes, you would expect some packages to be delayed because of separation during shipping, and other events. You would then expect the delayed packages to be split roughly 50-50 between labelled and unlabelled packages. My understanding is that this did not happen.
That depends on how the packages were labeled. If the first 50 out the door did not have the lable and the next 50 did, then you would not expect a 50-50 distribution if the packages got split in shipping. That would be a biased that would have been introduced. All of that is over simplified and is more involved because it would involve the way product is picked and sorted in the warehouse and other related factors.
According to the summary, each individual received two packages, one labeled as Atheist and one not. If weather conditions or other natural factors played into the shipment delays, wouldn't you expect the delay to affect both packages sent on the same day to the same address?
The fact that it took longer for the labled packages to get there is not in question. The conclusion that the USPS intentionally delayed those packages is because nothing in their tests actually tested that versus any number of other variables that lead to package delivery delays.
As for weather delays,a you would be wrong, although this is extreme. Mail and packages coming out of the north east was severly disrupted. We would receive box 2 of 4 and 3 of 4 on Monday and box 4 of 4 on Friday and box 1 of 4 the following Monday. Why? Because the weather disruptive normal operations all along the eastern seaboard. So, weather can and does make difference.
So, the shipment of these packages, less than a month after Sandy hit the north east, could that have caused problems? I don't know, they didn't test that. And of course, right after Sandy the north east got hit with several snow storms in November and then the upper midwest got hit in December. On top of all of that, between thanksgiving and xmas the USPS has extra deliery contraints due to the hollidays.
Again, none of those variables were eliminated by conducting the test at different times throughout the year to see if there were weather issues or seasonal issues. The USPS did report severe problems post Sandy including numerous lost packages from the flooding that had occurred (although that would be prior to the shipment of the shoes) and they were still in recovery mode.
Anyway, my point of all of this, is that the fact that the packages were delayed is not in question. The fact that it appears that it mainly impacted the atheist labled ones is interesting. But, it is also a fact that nothing in their testing methodology supports the conclusion that the USPS intentionally delayed the packages. All we know is that the labeled packages shipped on that particular day took longer to reach their destination than the non-labeld packages. As to why, their guess is as good as anybody elses and it would be interesting for somebody to test their hypothesis.
Oh, one more point. The study is NOT based on the assumption "that packages sent on the same day will arrive at the same time". It's based on the assumption that any variation in delay should not preferentially affect packages with "atheist" tape if nothing fishy is going on. The issue isn't that all the packages didn't arrive at the same time; it's that the "atheist" packages systematically arrived later... if they arrived at all.
The study is not the problem it is the assumption being made about what it means. From the data presented, one cannot say that there is a bias by the USPS to delay the atheist labeled packages. The only thing that can be said is that those packages took longer to get to their destination. As to why, the testing methodology was flawed in that it didn't test any variables related to the different steps in the delivery process once the package leaves the shipping warehouse or external factors that impact shipping.
As such, the only valid statement that can be made is that packages that had the labels/tape took longer, on average, to reach their destination. A significant amount of additional testing would be required to determine why.
Oh, one more point. The study is NOT based on the assumption "that packages sent on the same day will arrive at the same time". It's based on the assumption that any variation in delay should not preferentially affect packages with "atheist" tape if nothing fishy is going on. The issue isn't that all the packages didn't arrive at the same time; it's that the "atheist" packages systematically arrived later... if they arrived at all.
89 people (instead of packages) go into the emergency room. Those who have a complaint of chest pain get seen quicker than those who do not (instead of atheist tape or not). The point being, the tape on the box could have been a factor anywhere along the way. Yes, it did not occur in Germany, of course, they probably were not loaded on a trans-atlantic flight or cargo ship if they were being ship in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.
If this were a valid test, it would test atheist tape versus other message tape, not no tape at all. In addition, sending the packages all on one day, means it is impossible to tell if there was something isolated to this time frame such as inclement weather or the start of US xmas season or any number of geographical anomolies.
A valid test would be designed to eliminate these variables that could skew the results.
Slashdot Mirror
What he did was wrong.
I'm sorry, but it looks like you just said that acquiring documents in the public interest through the only reasonable means with the purpose of public dissemination at no cost was wrong.
I never said that and that is not what he did. He violated an the acceptable use policy that he agreed to abide by. That is an objective wrong as he agreed to it, unless you are holding the position that his access to the system was illegal to start with, which would be a whole different situation.
The question at hand behind all of this is whether or not the violation of an acceptable use policy warrants the full force of the federal government to come upon you versus something more reasonable, like suspending your access to the system in question? The secondary question is if the answer to the first question is "no," then why did it happen?
"Subjective" and "Subject to conditions" are not the same thing.
Subjective and Objective are technical terms used in discussing moral and ethical conditions. They have nothing to do with subject to conditions, but instead refer to how the moral decision or code is determined. Relativism comes into play, or more specifically subjective relativism.
For example, in the West, it is generally thought that it is morally unacceptable to for say a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. Yet, in many countries, the culture has the marital age at 14 and often the husband is older. In those cultures it is not morally unacceptable, and in fact, the norm. Therefore, you have the same moral issue - sex with a 14 year child that is both morally unacceptable and morally acceptable depending on the culture one lives in. As such, that is not an objective norm, but a subjective norm as it is depends on other factors to make a determination, at least to anybody outside those cultures.
In discussions of morallity and ethics, being subjective is not good or bad, it is simply a descriptive technical term.
Untrue.
The word "subjectively" can be replaced with "in my opinion" (or "in this person's opinion"). "Subjectively wrong" is so weak an idea that it has little worth beyond investigating mental pathology.
"Objectively wrong" essentially means "demonstrably wrong".
As stated in a different post, there are three types of morality. There is personal morality, which very much is the opinion you refer to and applies only to the individual. There is the group morality and there is societal morality.
However, in all three, things are still subjective. But, the higher up away from the individual you go, the less opinion you have. You shall not kill is a subjective moral statement. There are times when it is morally appropriate and times it is not. Therefore, killining another person is not objectively wrong. However, it is not an opinion, but a societal norm that gives the moral statement its weight. Now, in concientious objector in a war is making a personal moral statement. That is their belief or position and only applies to that individual. As such, it is an opinion, but still carries the same weight as every other morla position on the level of individual morality.
Objectively wrong does not mean demonstrably wrong. Demonstrably wrong implies it has to occur to demonstrate the wrongness. Where as if it is objectively wrong, then it doesn't have to occur. The concept of a just war is an example of demonstrably wrong. You cannot tell if a war is just or not until after it is over and what has been done has been reviewed to determine its status. On the other hand, to define what is and is not a just war would be an excercise in objectivity. So, a statement such as a war that intentionally killed innocents as a way to put pressure on the leadership to submit would not be a just war would be an example of an objective wrong. However, it does not have to be demonstrated to know that.
I think the problem here is that the terms objective and subjective have very specific meanings when used in discussion of morality and ethics. Basically they are technical terms and not the common useage. They are not good or bad or one is better than the other. They simply describe the type of moral condition under discussion and its origen.
I'm not going by Wikipedia. If you're talking about Exodus 20:12, I'm going by the fact that I know what the Hebrew word means, while you apparently don't.
I, too, know what the Hebrew word means and it means simply more than thou shalt not murder. Or are you implying that the Isrealites thought the equivalent of manslaughter was fine and just murder was the problem? In addition Exodus 20:12 is not the only place that has the prohibition against killing, nor is it all in Hebrew.
Regardless, of what the Hebrew word means, the Judea-Christian tradition that arose from it is what the discussion was about.
In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.
No, it does not mean that it means unlawful (as under God's law) killing. Murder would be an example of that, but it goes beyond murder (you can't rely on wikipedia for everything). But even so, the Judea-Christian has been Thou shalt not kill, except in these lawful situations, so killing in and of itself is not wrong, it depends on the reason behind the killing, which makes it subjective. So, either way, it is still subjective.
"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."
This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.
You are free to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it correct. We could put your hypothesis to a test, though and wait and see if the various world religions change to mimic western morality. So far it doesn't appear to be happening.
With regards to the commandments and leviticus and the rest. Well, once the Holy Roman Empire ruled Europe, it is pretty hard to say it was it was wrong to kill because some ancient code said it was instead of the Empire saying that God said it was. From that point, in the West, Church and State were synonymous and morality was was through religion. That morality has been passed down through the generations to today and has nothing to do with whether one agrees with a particular religion or is an atheist. It simply just is.
(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.
* whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
People who are good because of their religion are no more moral or immoral than people who are good based on whatever they base their moral code on. All morality does is set a code for right and wrong behavior and like it or not, if you live in western culture, your morality is based on the same religious myths you deride (although if you are referring to Judea-Christianity, it goes a lot further back than 3 thousand years).
There are three basic moral codes. There is the personal moral code, what the individual fews as right or wrong. There is the group moral code, what the immediate group one finds themself in views as right or wrong (people can be in multiple groups with multiple codes). And there is societies moral code, which is what society has deemed right or wrong. It is this societal code that has Judea-Christian roots in the West.
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
I don't think you are the typical user the article was refering to. Just like you are not the typical consumer at your local grocery store.
If you're bored and use that energy to play guitar and cook, it will make you happy. But if you watch TV, it may make you happy in the short term, but not in the long term.
One difference is that I can actually create something using a laptop or mobile device while away from home. For example, I have a 10" laptop on which I code Python programs as a hobby while riding a bus to and from work. I can't very well play the guitar or cook in such a situation.
But then you are actually using your 10" laptop for something other than what the study is talking about. Unless, you code Python only when you are bored, that is.
Don't be so ridiculously literal ... replace cooking or guitar with whatever floats your boat.
Of course cooking or guitar are already considered creative endeavors.
We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very confused and where you have extremists on both sides of the middle.
In summary, when I say 'objective', I don't mean it is "always wrong to....abc" or "always right to.... xyz" - I mean that there's a unknown value or desirability of outcome which is hard or impossible to find out, but nevertheless exists.
Intrinsic is not the same as objective. Intrinsic means by it's very nature it is this way and can never be another. Intrinsic is an internal quality. Objective means that there is some external standard that can be applied to measure it against. If there is no objective or external standard to compare against, then the morals cannot be measured objectively and can only be thought of subjectively.
Whether something is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong does not change the strength of the wrongness, it is still wrong. All it means is that the measure of that wrongness comes from outside the measurer (objective) or inside (subjective) where the mesurer could be the individual, group, society, etc.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that is the general idea. It is somewhat complicated, which is why, the authors of the study should take a philosophy course or two.
How is anything you just wrote relevant to the study presented (bunk as it may be)?
The study said that scientific literacy makes one more ethical. That would mean more likely to follow their moral code. And then they give examples about being able to point out that date rape is wrong. However, recognizing something is a violation of a moral code and not actually violating the moral code are two separate things. Ironically, if one did not know that date rape is wrong, then committing it would not be unethical.
I guess the point I was making is that for people of such high academic standards, you would think that they would know the difference between morals and ethics before publishing a paper that seems to confuse the two.
Or more accurately, what does the GP have against JSTOR's low-ranking IT admin who found the access log when requested? Or the teenage daughter of the manager at JSTOR who passed on the request for that log? Or the MIT janitor who was supposed to lock that storage closet?
Those are the people whose names are going to be named, and whose lives will be ruined when Anonymous lets loose their unbridled vigilante mayhem. Of course, the dear Common Man will loudly praise Anonymous' "justice", and when that IT admin can't get a job, or that teenager's fake nude picture is plastered across her college's website, or that janitor's door is knocked down by a SWAT team responding to a tip about a bombmaker... those are just minor incidents, nowhere near as tragic as putting valid accusations before our dear Saint Swartz.
If their lives are ruined, then it is from the same source that led to his taking his own life and that was the decision makers that chose to treat this like he was public enemy #1 and bring the full weight of the DOJ down on him. That is where your frustration should be aimed, not at the family. Those people that you mention were doing their job and trusted in a system that betrayed them every bit as much as it betrayed him.
And what he did was not anything that reasonably should be considered a crime. A stern talking to was about all he deserved, and it's basically what state prosecutors were seeking before federal prosecutors went batshit crazy on this case.
That's not quite true. What he did was wrong. Did it deserve the full weight of the US government to come down on him? No, it did not, which means that what DOJ, MIT and JSTOR did was a serious abuse of power that ended up with a human being feeling trapped to the point of having no other way out than to take his own life.
So, yes, he was wrong in what he did, but the people involved with this who should really be investigated and held accountable are off scott free.
I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.
The moment you add a qualifier such as "just a laff" (sic), you have shown that morals are not objective. If they were, there would not be a need for a qualifier.
If morals are objective, they are black and white, yes or no. It is wrong to murder somebody is a moral statement. Is it possible to that it would ever not be wrong to murder somebody (murder is different than killing)? However, most things are not black and white. As soon as you have to qualify, you have start down a path of relativism or subjectiveness. In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
Likewise, you will find with most moral codes, there is a lot of subjectivity to it. We raise our children to not tell iies and not call other people names. Why? Because that is part of a moral code that society says should exist. Exist, that is until you enter politics, which somehow, means what is important for our children to learn, is not important enough for adults to actually practice and society, for the most part is okay with that.
Why? Because historically, morality was based, right or wrong, on an external source, religion. Now, it is up to the individual. That means, today, morality can shift on a whim and as such, is no longer objective (as objective as religion could make it, anyway) but only subjective.
"The most unethical people through history has been highly educated."
cherry picking aka anecdotal evidence aka "any number of examples" do not prove any theory. On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:
Einstein
p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?
Attila the Hun, by all accounts, was a very ethical person. He had a different moral code than what we have today, but evidently was very consistent in following it. That doesn't make him unethical. If he hadn't followed his moral code, then he would be unethical.
A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.
There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.
Of course, we all know, for the human male there is only so much they can be endowed with. You have to choose which head gets endowed, so to speak. It is by far the rarest of exception to be endowed both in reasoning ability and sexual prowness. And, any males that disagree are just showing they weren't as endowed in reasoning ability as they thought.
Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?
(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)
Critical thinking has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics deals with how well one follows a moral code. There are ethical critical thinkers and unethical critical thinkers. There are ethical simpletons and unethical simpletons. It has no bearing on ones intelligence, just one's morals and a willingness to follow them.
Maybe those scientifically literate folks should take a philosophy course or two. In doing so, they might find that morality deals with things like right and wrong and ethics with how well you follow a moral code.
A moral person has some sort of code to help them do the right thing. An ethical person follows their moral code. Now we may argue over the merits of their moral code, but that does not change whether or not they are ethical. Likewise, we cannot argue over how ethical somebody's actions are without knowing their moral code.
Since we live in a society, their is an implied moral code and theirfore we judge one's behaviour as ethical or not based on that implied moral code. But in practice, the implied moral code comes up short. What is ethical for a lawyer is often very different than what is ethical for a medical researcher which is often very different for a judge or a grade school student or business.
Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society. Today, that is not the case, and morality is what the individual says it is. Not that we should go back to religion based morals, but leaving it solely up to the individual is dangerous for a society, too. Sex between an adult and a young teenager is morally wrong in the West, and yet, in many parts of the world, is the norm. Whose moral code is correct? More importantly, is it morally correct for either view to force their view on the other culture?
Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.
But, since we don't live in the 23rd century and must muddle through this ourselves. The relativism of the 21st century makes it next to impossible to determine ethical behaviour as the morals that one would use to base that judgement on are no longer objective, but subjective.
Maybe the scientifically literate, should ponder that.
The internals might be PC architecture, but Sony is going to make damned sure there's lots preventing you from running these games on a PC.
Please elaborate on these "lots". How is Sony going to prevent licensed developers from taking their own games, which are already ported to very PC-like hardware, and making PC ports available through Steam on the PC? And what is Sony going to do to attract PS4 ports of games originally developed for the PC?
Both Macs and Windows use PC architecture computers, and yet, I cannot run most Mac software on my Windows PC and vice versa. I can run Linux on both, but I can't run software designed for either on Linux. Software compatability is a lot more involved than the underlying hardware.
If PlayStation 4 is moving to a PC architecture, then what's the point of buying a PlayStation 4 over a home theater PC running a less-closed operating system such as Windows 8 or GNU/Linux?
Maybe because you want to play PS4 games? Apple moved to a PC architecture and people still purchase their products instead of a home theater PC or Windows 8 or GNU/Linux. Probably because they want to run OS X.
By the way, exactly how is running Windows 8 any less closed than running a Playstation?
Pardon me. That wasn't clear.
Yes, you would expect some packages to be delayed because of separation during shipping, and other events. You would then expect the delayed packages to be split roughly 50-50 between labelled and unlabelled packages. My understanding is that this did not happen.
That depends on how the packages were labeled. If the first 50 out the door did not have the lable and the next 50 did, then you would not expect a 50-50 distribution if the packages got split in shipping. That would be a biased that would have been introduced. All of that is over simplified and is more involved because it would involve the way product is picked and sorted in the warehouse and other related factors.
According to the summary, each individual received two packages, one labeled as Atheist and one not. If weather conditions or other natural factors played into the shipment delays, wouldn't you expect the delay to affect both packages sent on the same day to the same address?
The fact that it took longer for the labled packages to get there is not in question. The conclusion that the USPS intentionally delayed those packages is because nothing in their tests actually tested that versus any number of other variables that lead to package delivery delays.
As for weather delays,a you would be wrong, although this is extreme. Mail and packages coming out of the north east was severly disrupted. We would receive box 2 of 4 and 3 of 4 on Monday and box 4 of 4 on Friday and box 1 of 4 the following Monday. Why? Because the weather disruptive normal operations all along the eastern seaboard. So, weather can and does make difference.
So, the shipment of these packages, less than a month after Sandy hit the north east, could that have caused problems? I don't know, they didn't test that. And of course, right after Sandy the north east got hit with several snow storms in November and then the upper midwest got hit in December. On top of all of that, between thanksgiving and xmas the USPS has extra deliery contraints due to the hollidays.
Again, none of those variables were eliminated by conducting the test at different times throughout the year to see if there were weather issues or seasonal issues. The USPS did report severe problems post Sandy including numerous lost packages from the flooding that had occurred (although that would be prior to the shipment of the shoes) and they were still in recovery mode.
Anyway, my point of all of this, is that the fact that the packages were delayed is not in question. The fact that it appears that it mainly impacted the atheist labled ones is interesting. But, it is also a fact that nothing in their testing methodology supports the conclusion that the USPS intentionally delayed the packages. All we know is that the labeled packages shipped on that particular day took longer to reach their destination than the non-labeld packages. As to why, their guess is as good as anybody elses and it would be interesting for somebody to test their hypothesis.
Oh, one more point. The study is NOT based on the assumption "that packages sent on the same day will arrive at the same time". It's based on the assumption that any variation in delay should not preferentially affect packages with "atheist" tape if nothing fishy is going on. The issue isn't that all the packages didn't arrive at the same time; it's that the "atheist" packages systematically arrived later... if they arrived at all.
The study is not the problem it is the assumption being made about what it means. From the data presented, one cannot say that there is a bias by the USPS to delay the atheist labeled packages. The only thing that can be said is that those packages took longer to get to their destination. As to why, the testing methodology was flawed in that it didn't test any variables related to the different steps in the delivery process once the package leaves the shipping warehouse or external factors that impact shipping.
As such, the only valid statement that can be made is that packages that had the labels/tape took longer, on average, to reach their destination. A significant amount of additional testing would be required to determine why.
Oh, one more point. The study is NOT based on the assumption "that packages sent on the same day will arrive at the same time". It's based on the assumption that any variation in delay should not preferentially affect packages with "atheist" tape if nothing fishy is going on. The issue isn't that all the packages didn't arrive at the same time; it's that the "atheist" packages systematically arrived later... if they arrived at all.
89 people (instead of packages) go into the emergency room. Those who have a complaint of chest pain get seen quicker than those who do not (instead of atheist tape or not). The point being, the tape on the box could have been a factor anywhere along the way. Yes, it did not occur in Germany, of course, they probably were not loaded on a trans-atlantic flight or cargo ship if they were being ship in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.
If this were a valid test, it would test atheist tape versus other message tape, not no tape at all. In addition, sending the packages all on one day, means it is impossible to tell if there was something isolated to this time frame such as inclement weather or the start of US xmas season or any number of geographical anomolies.
A valid test would be designed to eliminate these variables that could skew the results.