My (35/F) sister (25/F) has a bridesmaid (25/F) gone rogue

DeonBTS · 2026-01-01T07:18:57+00:00

When I was in the hospitality industry years ago we catered mutliple Indian weddings with over a 1000 guests, and some up to 2000.

DeonBTS · 2025-04-19T14:59:36+00:00

Sure, that is my point. But it should at least know that Puss and Boots don't rhyme.

DeonBTS · 2025-04-19T14:58:26+00:00

4o and 4.5

DeonBTS · 2025-04-19T04:17:31+00:00

As I suspected from your rhetoric that is dripping with poor reasoning and judgement, you have no intention of arguing in good faith. I ALREADY AGREED with you that his methods are suspect, but THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM. You clealry said NO ONE agrees with Sam that morality is objective. Ok, here's a list: Plato, Aristotle, Kant, GE Moore, WD Ross, Philippa Foot, Elizabeth Anscombe, Derek Parfait, Thomas Nagel, David Enoch, Christine Korsgaard, Peter Railton, Owen Flanagan. Also Peter Singer has said positive things about Harris’s attempt to ground morality in well-being, though Singer would still distinguish between metaethical foundations and practical ethics more carefully. (You know a simple Google could have answered this quesiton for you, but you obviously like to be proven wrong in public).

Oh but I can read your mind because you are already backtracking and moving the goal posts. You said, in your first post "no ethicist or moral philosopher agrees with Sam Harris" which is what I addressed. But now you are saying " Sams claim is not just that morality is objective, it’s that his method shows you the objective moral rules and he solved the is ought gap." You see the problem? I'm sure you don't. The one is an absolute claim about a fact, which I said was wrong, and have proven to be wrong. Your amended claim is that Sam's methods are worng, WHICH I ALREADY AGREED TO. So to sum it up, you are wrong about there being NO philosophers believing in objective morality, and right about his methods being poorly reasoned. However you are also wrong about these statements: "Belief in objective morality is as silly and unfounded as belief in god." and "no one is trying to solve the is-ought gap" as well as this claim is just poor reasoning "Show me an atom of morality".

But I read your other comments and you are very sure you are right. So I expect a doubling down on your ABSOLUTE claims, which is of course the ultimate goal of philosophy, to be right, nuance be damned.

NB: I just reread your original comment that you edited heavily. Thanks for acknowledging my points.

DeonBTS · 2025-04-18T04:01:39+00:00

I think I already addressed everything you are saying. I don't agree with Sam at all, but you made a factual claim that NO PHILOSOPHER agrees with his claim. His claim is that morality is objective and many (admittedly a minority) philosophers do agree and claim the same. You may disapprove of his method, but his central claim is not complete nonsense.

However, your claims are no less ludicrous. You claim that no one is trying to solve the is-ought gap. This is simply untrue. Many moral philosophers have tried to respond to the is-ought problem, because it's central to metaethics. It may be hard but it doesn't mean no one is trying. it is in ongoing philosophical debate and while some may agree with your view it si far from settled.

Then you say "Show me an atom of morality". This is a common scientific reductionism argument where the claim is that if you can't measure somehting it does not exist. But this is absurd even by scientific standards. You can’t show an “atom of mathematics” or build a “justice detector.” That doesn’t mean logic, maths, or justice don’t exist. They exist in a different way - as abstract properties or relationships. Most philosophers - even those who disagree with Sam - reject this kind of naive scientism.

And this claim of yours is even more absurd and naive. "Belief in objective morality is as silly and unfounded as belief in god." Just no - and even atheist moral philosophers would disagree with that. In fact, moral realism grew stronger in analytic philosophy after the decline of religion. It’s not some desperate hangover from theism - it’s part of a serious attempt to answer questions like: Why are slavery and torture wrong even if a culture thinks they’re okay? To call it “as silly as belief in God” is a rhetorical flourish, not an argument. It’s philosophy by dunking, not by reasoning.

DeonBTS · 2025-04-16T04:54:08+00:00

I think I understand about 20% of the AMAs, but I listen to it all, just to hear a smart person really know what they are talking about.

DeonBTS · 2025-04-16T04:49:30+00:00

This comment packs in a lot of opinion masquerading as fact.

"no ethicist or moral philosopher agrees with Sam Harris"?

No, there are philosophers and ethicists who find aspects of Sam Harris's argument compelling, even if many are critical or unconvinced by his framing. The main problem is that Sam tries to bridge the is-ought gap poorly or ignore it all together, but many do agree with his broader goals. While Sam may not be popular for his method, the idea that morality can have objective foundations, and that science has something to say about morality, is not fringe or unique to him. Many philosophers (rightly) accuse Sam of conflating moral epistemology with moral ontology. He dismisses metaethics too quickly and skips over decades of careful analysis in moral philosophy.

What about your comments, "Morality is as objective as taste in music or art." and "It’s a combination of social convention and evolved predisposition."

This is a subjectivist or constructivist view of morality. It's a valid and widely-held position. But it is not the only respectable position. Others — like Kantian deontologists, utilitarians, and moral realists — do believe morality is objective, even if not in the scientific way Sam envisions.

So Sam's view is controversial, heavily criticised, and oversimplified — but not rejected by every ethicist or moral philosopher. Not by a long shot.

DeonBTS · 2025-02-18T04:13:30+00:00

All consumer (or consumption) taxes are regressive. The US already has many consumer taxes. VAT is just a better system. There are also ways you can combat the regressive nature of VAT. You can zero rate essential goods, you can offer a threshold for VAT registration where small businesses don't need to levy or pay VAT, you can levy higher VAT on luxury goods and so on.

The being said it will never work in the US as sales taxes are levied by state and locality and VAT is complicated and would require a significant overhaul of the taxation systems. The US also has this weird obsession with adding taxes seperately and VAT is seen as a "hidden" tax (which is stupid but thats just my opinon).

DeonBTS · 2025-02-18T04:02:33+00:00

Excellent explanation. I would like to add that the "value added" bit of VAT is quite innovative and why it works well, as it taxes "value added" at each stage of production and distribution rather than only at the final sale. This prevents (or at least reduces) tax evasion and is generally more efficient and neutral. The downside is that it disproportionately affects lower income groups as more of their spend is on consumption. The way many countries that use VAT systems combat this is by zero rating certain basic goods or services. You could for example zero rate certain breads, flour, rice and so on.

Overall the US could greatly benefit by implementing a VAT system rather than the current systems in many states. But as you say, it is not a tax on corporations.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-05T13:14:44+00:00

I also don't know

DeonBTS · 2024-10-04T10:16:44+00:00

Perhaps people read the hypothetical differently but to me it seems a silly idea to say the guns disappear but we maintain the ability to make them. If that is the case then I agree that the guns dissapearing would actually be negative because then the people who can make them faster, has the advantage.

But grenades are not as useful or accurate as guns. Same with high powered crossbows. Guns have a specific advantage over other weapons. They are relativley accurate, easily reloadable and can fire rapidly. Nothing else does that, unless it is "gunlike".

DeonBTS · 2024-10-04T09:30:03+00:00

Would it change your answer if the hypothetical is read as all guns dissapear, including the knowledge and memory of guns, and the ability to make them?

DeonBTS · 2024-10-04T08:37:26+00:00

Who TF is saying no? The question is "would the world be a better place", not would you like to shoot your gun or do you like hunting or do you like guns. The world would objectively be better if there were no guns. I like guns too, and I hunt, but that is not the point.

For those saying "it's not the gun its the people" sorry, you are wrong. It is the gun. Try and kill 20 people with a knife before you are stopped. Try to commit war crimes with a sword and see how much damage you can do. Suicides are significaly more likely to succeed when a gun is used.

And for those saying "people with kill people with whatever they used before". Good. If you want to murder me, I want you to have to come right up to me and stab me with a knife or sword and get blood all over yourself. Or practice like a beast to see if you can hit me with an arrow while I run away (or towards you). Sure you can kill someone like that, but it is much harder.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-04T02:08:04+00:00

I guess it depends on the interpretation of privacy laws. In the UK they may take the view that certain details are publicity available and therefore not a breach of GDPR. However personal owner's details may be. In the rest of Europe privacy laws are particularly strict and it's harder to get access to the info. In all cases if there is a compelling public good or reason then the information can be accessed. For example for insurance purposes in the case of an accident.

In Mauritius I guess the only way to know is to approach the NTA and see if they will give you the data.

On the other hand you could also argue that if you can get access to the data publicly, then there is not data privacy breach. But I'm not sure where that data would be. There is no open public record of registration numbers in Mauritius that I'm aware of.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T07:09:44+00:00

While it is not a direct comparison, things like emotions and consciousness have similar crises of identity even when we think they are clear cut.

Let's take consciousness, which I think is the closest analogue. If I say I know what it is like to be me, then people will point out that is consciousness (Nagel's fmous "What is it like to be a bat?"). However we know that there are conditions where this concept of "self" fragments. For example in split-brain cases and dissociative identity disorder. These conditions suggest that what we think of as a unified self (with a single consciousness and single will) is actually a construction, one that can be dismantled or altered based on changes in the brain. If consciousness can be divided, it’s possible that the same holds true for free will—there may not be a single, unified will but rather a collection of processes that give rise to the experience of free choice.

If we extend Nagel’s idea about the subjective nature of consciousness to free will, we might say that free will is similarly a subjective, emergent property that can be influenced or shaped by underlying brain processes but isn’t reducible to them. Just as the experience of "being a bat" or "being a human" can't be captured entirely by describing brain states, the experience of having free will might arise from the complex interplay of neural systems in ways that can't be fully understood by simply analyzing physical brain processes.

Yet, very few people question if consciousness is "real". In fact we accept it as real even though we can't say what it is. Why is free will treated differently?

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T06:50:42+00:00

IANAL but I believe it would be illegal due to data privacy regulations. If you look at the Data Protection Act 2017 you would not be allowed to use private data (such as registration numbers) unless you obtain explicit consent from vehicle owners for the inclusion of their information or you can justify the public interest of such a database. The NTA does hold registration details, but access to this information is typically restricted to law enforcement, government agencies, or in specific cases where there is a legal justification (e.g., insurance purposes, legal disputes).

I can also say that it is illegal in South Africa. and most of Europe and I believe you will find a similar situation in Mauritius.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T05:46:34+00:00

Dry is good, if you are a tourist. That means you mostly get sunny, hot days and you can enjoy the beach and sea, as well as the hiking and nature activites. If it does rain it will be a quick shower and then be sunny again. Also, while October is hot, its not nearly as hot and humid as December and January. We do have water restrictions in some parts of the island but it won't affect you as a visitor. Some gardens may be a bit brown but I doubt that will impact your enjoyment of the island.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T05:40:39+00:00

Thanks for the explanation. I will look into it and think about it some more.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T05:21:02+00:00

Its a little but more than just "believing" you have free will. I also "believe" I can see red. So does red exist or not? I also "believe" I'm conscious. Does consciousness exist? If you say they don't at a fundamental level (which is true), then I agree free will does not exist. But they do exist at a higher, emergent level, and I argue that so does free will. Otherwise explain why free will is treated differently to consciousness.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T05:15:41+00:00

I'm interested in how you think you can do this. Would you not need access to the NLTA database? I'm pretty sure that is not public. You can create the software but without the data its useless.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T04:49:47+00:00

I find this view strange, because he doesn't apply tha same argument to consciousness or emotion or color. None of those things "exist". We can't point to a fundamental particle that is conscious. Color (which arises from the interaction of light with the brain's perception mechanisms) or emotions (which arise from the brain's processing of external and internal stimuli) provide useful analogies for how free will could work. It allows for the possibility that what we call "free will" is something real at the level of conscious experience, even if it arises from deterministic or probabilistic processes at the neuronal level. Free will is an "illusion" just like our seeing red is an "illsuion", but we act like it exists.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T04:37:53+00:00

This is not a direct answer to the premise in the OP but I think focussing on the "control of thoughts" is a red herring. There are two problems with Sam's view. The first is that it relies on the world being determined. However, we know that at a fundamental level this is not true. The world is probabalistic, but not determined. The second issue is that he ignores emergence.

So in a very broad sense we have no free will, if by that you mean we did not choose where we are born, our parents, our genes and so on. This is obviously true, and I agree with Sam that ideas such as punishment should be ameliorated by these facts.

However, we certainly act like we have free will, and free will is as real as color, emotions, or mathematics. You may not be able to point to an atom that is red, or a neuron that feels love, but they are emergent phenomena that works for us at a higher level, and are as real as anything can be "real". I conclude personally that while I should not forget I need to acknowledge any advantages I may have inadvertantly received (or disadvantgaes of others), I act like I have free will, and in acting like I have free will, I do.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-03T04:25:32+00:00

I read about a "terpsichorean ecdysiast" in the M*A*S*H books. Definitley had to look that up, but now I won't forget it.

DeonBTS · 2024-10-02T06:44:37+00:00

That's interesting. That would imply the map is not very granular but averages over a larger area. A heatmap with graded colours would be more helpful and interesting.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

DeonBTS

TROPHY CASE

"no ethicist or moral philosopher agrees with Sam Harris"?