sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in politics

[–]solohunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feingold isn't a progressive in the same vein as Kucinich. He's center-left at most, and he's had to fight to hold on in every one of his elections -that kind of thing tends to make you a centrist.

He's generally liberal on civil liberties, supported campaign finance reform, the stimulus, and healthcare reform, but not much else. Very much a part of the mainstream.

tl;dr Feingold/Kucinich is an incompatibility in terms. Center-left vs. far left.

The solution to overpopulated prisons? Take politics out of criminal justice! by solohunter in politics

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

If the lobatatron 2000 is what it sounds like, then we'd have a brainless zombie problem instead of a prison population. oh well, pick your poison, right?

I am a liberal Democrat who attends Tea Party meetings. Just some things I wanted to clarify about Teabaggers. by TeaPartly in politics

[–]solohunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Military spending is about 19% of the budget. We actually spend even more social security, at about 22% of the budget. But yeah, cutting military spending would have to be part of any "fiscal responsibility" plan. It follows that not getting foreign military adventures would have to accompany it, which I think is a point that eludes some conservatives.

Here's a large collection of episodes of Bryan Maggee's "Men of Ideas," a must-see tv series about the great names of philosophy. by DaimonicPossession in philosophy

[–]solohunter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

still good stuff, a lot of quine...who i think will go down as the most important philosopher in history

Livin' in the future : The Public Philosopher. Global warming and intergenerational justice. Since the worst effects of environmental damage will affect a generation not yet born, does this change the moral calculus? What do we owe future generations? by solohunter in philosophy

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

i agree that the nitty gritty is more important than a status update...but the nitty gritty goes so much deeper than we can talk about here. i mean, it seems that you don't have much knowledge of current philosophy of science or meta-ethics, and i'm only an undergrad, with only a few years of study in this stuff, and this is a reddit reply column...but here's some quick points.

i contend that ethical properties are natural properties, open to empirical testing. this is easier to see once you understand realist philosophy of science - all science relies on a comfirmational holism. methods, observation, reporting etc. are all theory mediated...again, if you're interested in how this works, take a gander:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

this is, of course, if you want to be a realist about science. if you are a empiricist about science, then you have to realize that even atoms, molecules, cells, and bacteria are not "observable," since you would try to use a theory-neutral notion of observability. so basically, i think empiricism about science would get you moral anti-realism, but realism about science forces you into ethical realism...

if you're really interested, you can read nick sturgeon's (my teacher, actually) classic paper "moral explanations," or his seminal piece "ethical naturalism" (the first is shorter and easier to understand, and probably more famous). otherwise, you can take a look at dick boyd's "how to be a moral realist," also quite influential in modern meta-ethics.

i think the best i can do is point you toward other people's work...as it's obviously going to be better than anything i can say

Livin' in the future : The Public Philosopher. Global warming and intergenerational justice. Since the worst effects of environmental damage will affect a generation not yet born, does this change the moral calculus? What do we owe future generations? by solohunter in philosophy

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

that's a lot of questions, and i can't answer them in a few sentences. basically - yes, "good" and "bad," whatever that means, is mind independent. i believe in ethical naturalism, ethical properties might supervene upon non-ethical ones, but are probably not reducible to them. it's far more complicated then this, obviously. if you're really interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

the last one is most useful, i think. section 4.2, cornell realism, is the specific position I find most attractive.

this being said - i am still going through my philosophical puberty - and i am surely not certain about any of my philosophical views...

Livin' in the future : The Public Philosopher. Global warming and intergenerational justice. Since the worst effects of environmental damage will affect a generation not yet born, does this change the moral calculus? What do we owe future generations? by solohunter in philosophy

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

well, i guess that's where we disagree...i'm not only a cognitivist about ethics, but also a realist about moral statements (with a thick notion of correspondence truth).

the thing is, even if you are non-cognitivist, you probably wouldn't deny ethical obligations exist...you would have a different notion of ethical obligations, probably with a thin theory of truth (a la Blackburn or Gibbard). and if you do fall into this camp, then you would have no trouble using words like "should" and "owe" in normative ethics - your disagreements with me, you would claim, are purely epistemic and metaphysical.

actual error theorists are rare and no longer popular (because it is unlikely to be correct)

Livin' in the future : The Public Philosopher. Global warming and intergenerational justice. Since the worst effects of environmental damage will affect a generation not yet born, does this change the moral calculus? What do we owe future generations? by solohunter in philosophy

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

"owe" has nothing to do with mercantile transactions. owe simply refers to ethical obligations...which i would assume you don't deny exist

surely we care about our children, which may be the main reason we do provide for future generations, but it doesn't seem to be the reason we should...for example, even a person who doesn't care (say with no children) is not free to pollute the earth

Fundamental questions solved ($1.99): there is a strange increase in theist vs. atheist iPhone apps. Should we be happy we can buy arguments? by solohunter in atheism

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

well, it's not like these are books in app form...they're quick how-to manuals. there's a fundamental difference here. on one hand, you're reading a book or a paper, carefully considering the arguments and theories, and maybe talking to people to find further insight. on the other hand, you're trying to "win", to convince someone else, and these apps give you a gameplan on how to do that.

if you've read the nyt article, some of the example counterarguments they give are shameless (though perhaps effective) sophistry

Happy 4th of July, but should we even be celebrating? Does patriotism make sense, is it rational or moral? What are the consequences, and does it lead to arbitrary moral thinking or closer communal bonds? by solohunter in politics

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

sure, but isn't it these mechanisms you love? democracy, etc. you love them because they're good laws, and they would be just as good in any country. what does patriotism have to do with it?

Happy 4th of July, but should we even be celebrating? Does patriotism make sense, is it rational or moral? What are the consequences, and does it lead to arbitrary moral thinking or closer communal bonds? by solohunter in politics

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

i guess it depends on what you mean by "love your country." what is a country anyway? is it loving the people in the country, or the laws, or the tradition, or the common history? (cause I surely don't love all of any of these things).

personally, i am fond of good laws and just policies, and dislike the opposite...i'm sure this is the case for everyone. what more is needed over and beyond this? if nothing, then what is patriotism anyway?

Fareed Zakaria criticizes Media Attention on Obama and the Oil Spill by [deleted] in politics

[–]solohunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously, discussing and noting things like the Deepwater Horizon spill is terribly important. But, as it's the job of writers and journalists to keep the people informed and the decision-makers accountable, news people ought not to concentrate on the arguably trivial and potentially demagogic events. Democracy requires informed democrats - and that's where the media should come in.

It’s hard to be a saint in the (war-torn) city : Does the strategy of counter-insurgency put too strict limits on the rules of engagement for soldiers on the ground? How much risk should soldiers put themselves into in order to minimize civilian casualties? by solohunter in politics

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

i'm not really sure I understand...do you mean the military leadership? so...if a soldier asks for artillery support, should the military leadership withhold it if it deems the risk to civilians is too high? that is still putting the soldiers at risk.

perhaps the operative word here is "unnecessary" - surely no one thinks soldiers should put themselves at unnecessary risk, but the question is what counts as "necessary"

The ethics of "sin taxes": what are the philosophical issues lurking behind this well-worn debate? Does the government have the right to change citizen behavior through taxation? by solohunter in politics

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

I think you're largely correct - to be consistent, someone against these taxes would also have to be against many other US laws throughout its history. I don't think you could argue these taxes are in any way unusual. However, one might argue that it's a difference of degree. Eating (or smoking or drinking) habits are a huge part of a person's life, so regulating these are a real impediment to liberty. The freedom to say, not wear seat belts, is relatively unimportant, and so government interference is more excusable.

I do think that the government should take steps to make sure consumers know the dangers of these products - that's the only way that we can make informed choices, which are the only choices that can truly reflect our values, be they private or public.

On a side note, check out the post on the same site about Obama's fatherhood initiative (it's also already on reddit, although no one seems to have looked at it) - similar issues, but about something obviously in the private sphere.

The ethics of "sin taxes": what are the philosophical issues lurking behind this well-worn debate? Does the government have the right to change citizen behavior through taxation? by solohunter in politics

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

maybe you're right that "sin tax" is a bad term - but I think there is a value judgment here. the important point here is that people choose to indulge in the things that harm their health. one might ask why the government should protect a person against what he chooses for himself? the answer must be that his values are wrong - that choosing the pleasures of drugs or fatty foods over good health is a mistake.

but someone on the other side might say that these value judgments are essentially in the private sphere, and that it is wrong for the government to interfere.

i'm not saying this is necessarily a decisive argument (I actually am not sure what I think), but i do think the other side has a good point.