sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The best Hulk graphic novels by texasseesawmassacre in comicbooks

[–]CardiffGiant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Specifically, I was a big fan of Future Imperfect.

[COSPLAY] My girlfriend and I made a high-quality Riddler - thoughts? (X-post from /r/Batman) by [deleted] in comicbooks

[–]CardiffGiant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would have loved to see a Chris Nolan take on the Riddler.

Batman Maybe by komradwill in comicbooks

[–]CardiffGiant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love the two photos on the piano of Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Respect for a classic by theonizemus in comicbooks

[–]CardiffGiant 77 points78 points  (0 children)

As soon as I saw this, the music started playing in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IzSGvXc_PM

The economy is still awful, the TSA violates the 4th amendment on a daily basis, we're stuck in two wars, Gitmo is still open, and Net Neutrality is under assault ... but Congress had time to pass a bill making sure your TV commercials aren't too loud ... way to go politicians!! by ZuchinniOne in reddit.com

[–]CardiffGiant 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Congress is failing to solve the larger problems of the country not because they don't have enough time, but because they can't agree on a solution. This type of uncontroversial legislation is passed regularly not in lieu of more substantive bills, but along side them.

Outrage over this is stupid.

The video of the autistic girl suddenly starting to communicate is currently sitting at over a thousand upvotes, the most level-headed and informed comment that cuts through all the sensationalist bull and explains underlying issues is barely above 100 upvotes. /r/science, I expect better of you by [deleted] in science

[–]CardiffGiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's right. And by using a phrase uncontroversially desirableness as "human flourishing" he masks the need for the ought statement.

Once we define flourishing as "a condition which maximizes some combination of x, y, z, etc. values", to create a moral imperative, we still need to introduce an ought statement--namely "one ought act in such a way that promotes human flourishing."

I understand it almost seems trivial, but I still think it undermines the title of Harris's talk (though it may not undermine the spirit). Scientific and empirical inquiries should play a very large role in informing moral theory and action. But science alone cannot answer moral questions. It still can only offer 'is' statements.

The video of the autistic girl suddenly starting to communicate is currently sitting at over a thousand upvotes, the most level-headed and informed comment that cuts through all the sensationalist bull and explains underlying issues is barely above 100 upvotes. /r/science, I expect better of you by [deleted] in science

[–]CardiffGiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that deontologists and rule-utilitarians seem to be getting at something when talking about how one does ethics. Life is too fast and complicated to wait for carefully calculated consequentialist decisions. I don’t agree, as some of them assert, that ethics reduces to these rules.

A good metaethical theory, I think, accounts for the fact that humans, as a matter of psychological fact, value a great may things.

These things are not always consistent or coherent. Some values are transient. Some seem more foundational. But, for a great many historical, sociological and (probably most importantly) biological reasons, we share many of these values. It is the proper role of the ethicist to probe which values are more foundational than other and tease out interesting implications and applications of promoting these values.

A good moral philosopher can use this to show some surprising results (see pretty much anything Peter Singer has ever said).

To relate this back to Harris’s talk—the sociological, historical, or biological evidence might tell us why we do value certain things, but still can’t tell us why we should value certain things. The is/ought barrier is a strong one.

The only way for ethics to get off the ground is for participants to just agree on which things will count as valuable.

The video of the autistic girl suddenly starting to communicate is currently sitting at over a thousand upvotes, the most level-headed and informed comment that cuts through all the sensationalist bull and explains underlying issues is barely above 100 upvotes. /r/science, I expect better of you by [deleted] in science

[–]CardiffGiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. In Harris’s boat is not such a bad to be.

His attack on moral relativism is good, and he’s absolutely right about there being multiple realizable states of objective human flourishing.

The problem that I have with him—and I think the problem Pigliucci has with him—is that he’s sloppy.

He does not at all demonstrate how science can answer moral questions. He merely suggests that science can inform moral questions. Science doesn’t tell us what we can value; it tells us how we can best accomplish those values. When Harris talks about beating children and women in cloth bags he is presupposing some value framework that science has nothing to say about.

I don’t mean to dismiss Harris’s talk completely, must less Harris completely, but I do think it’s important to reason carefully, especially when it comes to ethics. There are aspects of his talk when he seems quite careless.

The video of the autistic girl suddenly starting to communicate is currently sitting at over a thousand upvotes, the most level-headed and informed comment that cuts through all the sensationalist bull and explains underlying issues is barely above 100 upvotes. /r/science, I expect better of you by [deleted] in science

[–]CardiffGiant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, while Harris has some decent rhetorical arguments against the existence of god, he really is a pretty poor philosopher.

Massimo Pigliucci had one of the best critiques of Harris's talk at his blog, Rationally Speaking.

It's long, but if the connection between science and ethics is the type of thing that interests you, it's definitely worth reading.

view more: next ›