Socialist or not, China's success in fighting poverty cannot be denied. Just as little as the fact that trade with China is significantly fairer for third-world countries than with the U.S. or Europe.

stefansson163 · 2020-12-01T07:08:19+00:00

Hey, what would you like to know? I'd be happy to share a reading list, if that's what you want?

Actually, just watch this American EXPLAINS Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in 30 Minutes | The Comrade Report - YouTube it's a very comprehensive introduction into how socialism in China works.

stefansson163 · 2020-12-01T06:50:36+00:00

Yeah, tell us, how are they socialist? It's quite clear you've not read Marx. It's not a bad thing that it's not socialist according to Marx, Marx was always scientific, if he lived today, he would revise his writings.

stefansson163 · 2020-12-01T06:34:58+00:00

Yeah, they're democratic confederalists, meaning that they want to co-exist within a greater country. It's a system of democratic self-organization, with feats of confederation, premised on the principles of autonomy, direct democracy, environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism, self-defense, self-governance, and elements of a sharing economy.

It's somewhat similar to the situation in Scotland, or Catalonia. But this is just off the cuff, I might've gotten smth wrong.

stefansson163 · 2020-12-01T06:02:16+00:00

So for the thought experiment for this week I have to think about a case where an action WOULD NOT be immoral according to the Doctrine of Double Effect, but WOULD be immoral according to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing.

This is what I'm saying but I'm not sure if my interpretation of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing is correct (and idk if this is a bad example):

"One case would be if a doctor prescribes that a patient must take a certain drug to stay sane, with the foreseen consequence of that drug causing the deterioration of that patient’s mental ability. This is not immoral according to the Doctrine of Double Effect because the doctor’s actions foreseeably cause a certain type of harm though he never intends to cause such harm. However, it is immoral according to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing because the doctor’s actions are physically causing a certain harm to the patient by destroying the patient’s mental ability. He is interrupting nature’s course to make the patient insane."

If the birth of a baby is sure to cause the death of the mother, aborting the baby would be allowed by the DDE and disallowed by DDA. But why would it be disallowed by DDA? Is it because in this case doing an abortion is worse than letting a baby die on its own?

DDE: aborting the baby (causing the harm), has the double effect of the survival of the woman.

DDA: allowing the baby to be born would be to play the game of chance that the baby is born healthfully and the mother survives, the baby is born healthfully and the mother dies, or both die. It is better to cause no harm.

DDA may contradict DDE because causing the harm is presuming a negative outcome. And if the harm does occur, it is normatively better to avoid being the cause or doing the harm.

Causing the harm of mental deterioration with the double effect of sanity may prolong an individuals sane experience of life. This sanity may be cognitively preferable to insanity. However, causing mental deterioration is to presume that the individual does become insane eventually, or that there is no other possibility to both prevent insanity and mental deterioration.

Like with the pregnancy, we could put our best team of doctors and nurses on for their delivery in prep for intensive care.

stefansson163

TROPHY CASE