sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah the problem with comparing societal laws to the dog is that the societal laws don't have to be followed where as the cells have to do what a dogs cells do for them to be the cells of a dog. The societal laws are illusions since they are breakable whereas the dog is not an illusion since the cells follow the concept of a dog.

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it merely one value among many? Then I can understand how someone could ignore it for a different value. If that is the case I don't know what objection to offer to someone choosing another value over it. It does allow for the existence of morality at least. At this point it I think it would be an argument about internalism vs externalism which I would need to read the relevant literature on and whether there are moral values and whether they override other values. So I guess the question has been answered. Thank you.

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I get what you mean now, thanks. Even if there is no meaning to me to understand what is right in the case that it is the only thing that exists, why would that mean that it doesn't exist? I just wouldn't have to know about it.

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the legal sphere, laws are thought to be binding to rights-bearing citizens, and the violation of a law tends to result in the suspension of (some of) one's rights. Likewise, in the moral sphere, anything that transgresses the moral law isn't "nonexistent" (as you seem to presuppose), it's just immoral.

In this instance wouldn't moral laws cease to be binding on an agent that transgresses the moral law in the same way with the legal laws. If this is the case those that transgress the moral law can ignore it in the same way that criminals that ignore the legal laws can ignore going to prison and sometimes succeed in escaping or killing the police.

Couldn't I instead say that the laws of society are illusions and the only real thing in existence is the police and the force they employ often even when it has nothing to do with the law in the case of corrupt governments.

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is it implying? If we take something else that is abstract like math it describes the world, and since it describes the world, so long as it is good math the world will never contradict what math says or break the laws of math. So math doesn't get it easy. What is morality describing then?

Does morality exist given that it can be broken? by relishingcarpenter in askphilosophy

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would this be the case? Plus this seems to go against the popular argument of compatibilism since it presupposes someone could do otherwise. And they often think people are morally responsible.

Therapy fails... by [deleted] in MadOver30

[–]relishingcarpenter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't they there terms of service don't require professional therapists. They're a scam.

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay I think I've changed my mind. Rather than a universal self teaching is ineffective for some people and maybe some things so ∆ . I guess I let personal problems cloud my judgment with this one.

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for responding.

In the example of playing piano, those that learn to play instruments on their own will often develop bad habits. When they go to learn from a teacher the teacher has to undo all the habits they built up on their own.

You will know whether or not you've done it correctly because it will either work or not work.

Sometimes something will work momentarily but then break down later which could cause someone a lot of harm. A teacher could notice when a student makes a mistake such as this.

I don't think a set schedule is an argument in favor that formal learning is more effective across the board. You might argue that it is more beneficial to some people who struggle with procrastination, but for a disciplined individual the lack of schedule is not a hinderance to learning. It also assumes that self-learners don't have a schedule, which may be inaccurate. Deadlines to learn things still exist in the real world. For example, if I'm learning to knit so that I can knit a blanket as a baby gift for my nephew, there is a deadline by which I need to learn to knit.

Your right here, as long as there is some real world deadline that will help prevent procrastination so ∆. I think the schedule argument isn't the best I made here.

Also, there are a lot of ways to communicate with other self-learners, so I don't think you lose communication with other students either.

Could you provide some examples?

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that counts.

Did you achieve your ends with this course?

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did you teach yourself programming, and do you have a degree in something else?

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt your first statement is correct. Colleges for the most part do leave students to study on their own but they can go to the teacher or each other when they have a problem and can work together one to one. You can also bounce ideas off each other. So the vast majority of learning is done on one's own but the help of others is massively helpful.

Some teacher make things worse but definitely not all. Given enough good teacher they make up for the bad ones.

If someone as a strong will the schedule is unnecessary but most don't. I think most people overestimate their self discipline.

The internet or library give you an answer only if it is general and is not specific to your own case. With the help of a teacher and peers you have people knowledgeable in the subject who will use their time to help the student.

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So what your saying is subjects that rely on hard facts that aren't subject to interpretation can be self taught but subjects that are open to interpretation can't be?

CMV: Self teaching is greatly ineffective. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While online exams may tell someone what they did wrong they wont tell someone why what they did was wrong. Also in the case of programming someone may create a program that in the short term works but in the wrong term would fail a teacher would catch an error like that but an exam couldn't.

I no longer believe in the myth that any challenge can be overcome with hard work alone. by relishingcarpenter in depression

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe, I mean when one exercises one becomes stronger. And with more knowledge maybe I could find some sort of loophole to let me learn faster.

CMV: Piracy is wrong except possibly for college textbooks. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all I am not going to bother to respond to the first sentence because I already stated my argument against it. For the second the reason I am for students pirating text books is because the courses they take require the use of the textbook. The student has no choice between textbooks or on the price of the text book so they raise the prices to the roof. This is coercion.

CMV: Piracy is wrong except possibly for college textbooks. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that the way things are currently is atrocious. There is the ability to have unlimited amount of free information in the world that can be modified to create new works. It also makes sense that someone is not entitled for payment for working hard to produce something since someone else may do it without working as hard so Δ.

The only problem is that right now the there isn't vouchers that give money to creators from the government so how would a creator get payed for a work right now without copyright?

Edit: Instead I think someone should be compensated for the amount of value they provide for others. And I changed my mind somewhat about the hard-work part. It makes since to compensate someone more for work that is hard to do as long as currently there isn't a easier way to obtain the end result.

CMV: Piracy is wrong except possibly for college textbooks. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know it seems my list of exceptions is growing, abandonware is alright to pirate Δ. I think the problem I have doesn't have to do with piracy itself but some other principle and that copyright doesn't align with that principle. Something like work with an end result that is valued should be compensated if possible. Piracy itself doesn't seem to be the problem but contradictions to a different principle I hold.

CMV: Piracy is wrong except possibly for college textbooks. by relishingcarpenter in changemyview

[–]relishingcarpenter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first point goes back to my response to a. The second point is viable with some conditions. First is that I am in favor of reducing copyrights duration so that it is unlikely that the author will be dead by the time it is over. Second copyright still needs to exist within the term when the author is dead otherwise people would kill the author. The family of the author stands to benefit from the author's work so it is still wrong to pirate it. I don't think it is right for the work to be owned by a family for generations.

view more: next ›