Interestingly, USA is further up than I thought.
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9414607
Bloody typical, it's always more expensive in the UK than on the continent. Rip-Off Britain is still alive and well.
woot we are 5th :D
oh wait thats bad :(
700$ for 1 gramm- at least its too expensive for young people, so they cant afford it and take irreparable damage by "collecting experiences".
maybe one day also here in europe you can buy kokain for 10 euro. when you have children, how can you protect your own children from this?
im for a very hard punishment for kokaindealers. determent is the best prevention. and this crap is very dangerous espacially for young people.
just imagine, 2$ for 1g!
Quote from: Hektor;195791700$ for 1 gramm- at least its too expensive for young people, ....
Think Crime !
Guys,
I personally find this topic offensive. What value does this so called information bring to the community? Delan are you a crack-head or something?
I'm not interested in street value of class A drugs what so ever. Give your head a shake please.
Quote from: Thulsa Doom;195792Think Crime !
for example in the usa, about every 5 seconds a man rape a woman or a girl.
what is the punishmment? WHEN they get caught by the policce, they go to prison a few years. after they come out, they continue.
here is a simple practical law: when those people get a very hard punishment for example death penalty, what do you think will happen?
-will the number of the raping of woman and girls increase? will it stay the same or will it go down?
- it will go down of course! its a simple practical law!
sad to say, but very often this kind of determent is necessary to retain peace.
here in germany taking kokain or dealing with it is a
peccadilloffor the society as well as for the law( when you have little amounts of drugs, youll ge no punishment.
i just want to point out that a hard punishment is sometimes necessary to keep peace
do you knoe the movie "a time to kill" from john grisham with samuel l jackson?- remember what he did to the 2 men! in my opinion he did right!
Quote from: Ninja_Freak;195798Guys,
I personally find this topic offensive. What value does this so called information bring to the community? Delan are you a crack-head or something?
I'm not interested in street value of class A drugs what so ever. Give your head a shake please.
your right, its a very serious topic, and maybe this isnt the right place to talk about theat kind of topics.
so ill quit before i start to philosophize :)
Quote from: Ninja_Freak;195798I personally find this topic offensive. What value does this so called information bring to the community? Delan are you a crack-head or something? I'm not interested in street value of class A drugs what so ever. Give your head a shake please.
The list is posted for you to pick up what you want from the study. If you think the only value in posting the listing is learning where you go to get your drugs cheaper, then just ignore my post.
I, on the other hand, am amazed by the fact that the differences are that high and ponder on that for a while. I wonder why? High costs could be the reason some countries manage to control drugs better - and this could even be a scale for how well supply chain of cocaine is being fought in each country? With all the drugs in the US (prejudice on my part, maybe?) and the large scale production in South America I would expect them to be rock bottom on the list. Since they are not, this could be a measure of the strong enforcement? Does this relate to the cost in terms of length of prison sentences? Are there natural factors that prohibits the spread of drugs, such as distance from production sites - meaning that countries with water around them and far away from where the drugs are made, are the drugs more expensive there? I could go on and on and wonder...
But as I said, make of it what you want. But I sure as **** didn't post this as "traveller's guide to getting blow away cheap".
Quote from: Hektor;195802your right, its a very serious topic, and maybe this isnt the right place to talk about theat kind of topics.
We are in the serious section which so far has covered way more serious topics.
Quote from: Hektor;195802so ill quit before i start to philosophize :)
I, for one, even if I am the only one, would like to hear where you thoughts lead you :)
Quote from: Hektor;195800for example in the usa, about every 5 seconds a man rape a woman or a girl.
what is the punishmment?
I agree with you, in that sentences often does not reflect the damage they do. But is that because of lack of insight or will to make change, by people in position to change it? Should physical violations rate higher than economical crime for instance?
oh i see, there is a serious section. i didnt notice that, but im quite new in this forum.:D
once i start talking about serious topics, itll took hours until i stop:rolleyes: .
the problem is that i cant express properly in english, because i dont find the right words like i do in german.
because of that there is a high chance of misconception - im afraid of that when its about important things.
(i think i gotta learn english better:D )
Quote from: delanvital;195822I agree with you, in that sentences often does not reflect the damage they do. But is that because of lack of insight or will to make change, by people in position to change it? Should physical violations rate higher than economical crime for instance?
when you decide about a punishment you can think about yourself. i mean, think for example when someone rape
your daughter or when someone steal all
your money, what would you do to the culprit?
i met a lot of people who are against the death penalty. they all say its babaric,cruel and inhuman- so far, so good.
but when i tell them: imagine someone rape your own sister or daughter,
and this man stand infront of you, and you can decide what punishment this man should get. you know what they answer?- they
all say, in that case they want the death penalty for this man.
you see, there is obviously a discrepancy. but sometimes its necessary to use violence when you want to keep peace for innocent people.
what i want to say is that everyone has a feeling for what is right and what is wrong. no matter in what culture or society someone lives.
here is another example:
imagine you have a cat. you are eating and you give your cat a piece of the fisch you are eating. the cat sits near you and eat it.
but, when you are eating, and turn your back to your plate,
and your cat steal a piece of the fisch, it wont sits near to you while eating. the cat will run away and eat the fisch somewhere else.
so, even the cat knows that its not ok to steal, otherwise the cat wont hide from you, while before it stay near to youand eat.
every human has a feeling for justice and knows right and wrong. you see even the animal know!
because of that(the knowledge of all people), high punishment for physikal as well as for econimical crime is justified.
its very simple: when you are charitable to criminals, then you arent fair to the righteous.
maybe a bit off topic,you know i tend to digress :byebye:
Quote from: Hektor;195834when you decide about a punishment you can think about yourself. i mean, think for example when someone rape your daughter or when someone steal all your money, what would you do to the culprit?
i met a lot of people who are against the death penalty. they all say its babaric,cruel and inhuman- so far, so good.
but when i tell them: imagine someone rape your own sister or daughter,
and this man stand infront of you, and you can decide what punishment this man should get. you know what they answer?- they all say, in that case they want the death penalty for this man.
you see, there is obviously a discrepancy. but sometimes its necessary to use violence when you want to keep peace for innocent people.
what i want to say is that everyone has a feeling for what is right and what is wrong. no matter in what culture or society someone lives.
here is another example:
imagine you have a cat. you are eating and you give your cat a piece of the fisch you are eating. the cat sits near you and eat it.
but, when you are eating, and turn your back to your plate,
and your cat steal a piece of the fisch, it wont sits near to you while eating. the cat will run away and eat the fisch somewhere else.
so, even the cat knows that its not ok to steal, otherwise the cat wont hide from you, while before it stay near to youand eat.
every human has a feeling for justice and knows right and wrong. you see even the animal know!
because of that(the knowledge of all people), high punishment for physikal as well as for econimical crime is justified.
its very simple: when you are charitable to criminals, then you arent fair to the righteous.
I have never been in the strong emotinal situation you mentioned, so I can't say. But I so far favour no death penalty. In my eyes, taking a life would always be a crime, regardless of who it belongs to. I know there are tons of people that disagree here. So, a criminal who has killed some one dear to me stands in front of me. I would probably want to kill him, or at least bring my hatred upon him. Well, then the law should be there, saying I can't kill him. Just because I want to strike him down for crimes committed to me, it doesn't make my desired actions fair. What does vengeance bring me? Not much I believe. I guess it comes down to what vengeance does for you?
Interesting link there Del, i'm no druggie but i do find statistics interesting. I didn't think New Zealand would be top to be honest. Are all the hobbits druggies or something? :blink: I wonder how this affects the country. Is a higher price a good thing, meaning people buy less or does it just mean people do more crimes to pay for it?
Quote from: Lee;195949Interesting link there Del, i'm no druggie but i do find statistics interesting. I didn't think New Zealand would be top to be honest. Are all the hobbits druggies or something? :blink: I wonder how this affects the country. Is a higher price a good thing, meaning people buy less or does it just mean people do more crimes to pay for it?
Now, that is a good point. If the price is that high, maybe due to greater enforcement, it might be a catalyst for other crimes, in order to feed a need. And I guess the only reason anyone would pay the high prices in some countries is because it is exactly that, a need that must be covered. Maybe the best method then, would be to focus more heavily on getting people out of needs, rather than putting those dependent on it down? Or a combo? Or am I being naïve?
It is an interesting chart, but unfortunately it may be a little wrong.
£40 a gram in Britain is expensive. Ignore the obvious connotations from that.
It's interesting that it's cheaper in Canada than in the US, is that supply and demand, surely it takes the same path?
Quote from: Benny;196169It is an interesting chart, but unfortunately it may be a little wrong.
£40 a gram in Britain is expensive. Ignore the obvious connotations from that.
It's interesting that it's cheaper in Canada than in the US, is that supply and demand, surely it takes the same path?
Yeah, same path of supply, via the US probably? This fits with the idea of enforcement and risk pushing up prices. Or, maybe, as you say, less demand in Canada, letting the price stay down?
Quickest supply route I've personally found was via the button by the side of my hospital bed last week. I know its not quite the same thing, but morphine delivered by a nurse to your bed side has to be a pretty good alterantive.
You allright now Rizzy?
Or are you now going Cold Turky?
one example: new orleans was a prosperous middle-class city. then there was the hurricane last year. suddenly, there was chaos, because there were no police who guard the people.
no policeman, no court, no prison...
you all know what happened: all the "normal" citizens - a lot of them never did a crime in their life before- took advantage of the situation; they despoil all the shops(not for necessary food or water, but for tv, sony, money etc...). they get a gun and raid each other, a lot of man rape woman... and so on and so far. so many innocent people died.
before, a lot of people only behave accurate because they were afraid of the negative consequences!
when suddenly there is anarchy, which means there is no executive power who observe the people and make sure everone stick to the rules, the behaviour changes totally.
well, to build a bridge to the topic, there are so many anti-social elements in every society.
drugs are very dangerous and often underrated espacially in my generation.
drugdealers are also anti-social elemments. and as i said before, the punishment for them is just ridiculous(at least in germany).
always think about how would you feel when your son or daughter can buy cokain on every street for 5 bugs?
its so cheap because the punishment is far too lame.
you can see in my example of new orleans who the victims are: the victims are the decent, innocent people.
to protect the "good" people, its necessary to keep away the anti-social elements, and as i explained, determent is the best of prevention.
so imagine there is a very hard punishment for criminals, then cokain would never cost 5$, then it will be nearly impossible for youngg people to get some, and - of course- there will be less criminals!- because they are all afraid of the hard punishment!
imagine its not necessary to punish people, because everyone behave proper... then we are in paradise...
Quote from: Hektor;196220one example: new orleans was a prosperous middle-class city. then there was the hurricane last year. suddenly, there was chaos, because there were no police who guard the people.
no policeman, no court, no prison...
you all know what happened: all the "normal" citizens - a lot of them never did a crime in their life before- take advantage of the situation; they despoil all the shops(not for necessary food or water, but for tv, sony, money etc...). they get a gun and raid each other, a lot of man rape woman... and so on and so far. so many innocent people died.
before, a lot of people only behave accurate because they were afraid of the negative consequences!
when suddenly there is anarchy, which means there is no executive power who observe the people and make sure everone stick to the rules, the behaviour changes totally.
well, to build a bridge to the topic, there are so many anti-social elements in every society.
drugs are very dangerous and often underrated espacially in my generation.
drugdealers are also anti-social elemments. and as i said before, the punishment for them is just ridiculous(at least in germany).
always think about how would you feel when your son or daughter can buy cokain on every street for 5 bugs?
its so cheap because the punishment is far too lame.
you can see in my example of new orleans who the victims are: the victims are the decent, innocent people.
to protect the "good" people, its necessary to keep away the anti-social elements, and as i explained, determent is the best of prevention.
so imagine there is a very hard punishment for criminals, then cokain would never cost 5$, then it will be nearly impossible for youngg people to get some, and - of course- there will be less criminals!- because they are all afraid of the hard punishment!
imagine its not necessary to punish people, because everyone behave proper... then we are in paradise...
New Orleans was a state of emergency (martial law or however you put that) in combination with life threatening elements such as dehydration, infection and so on. I know you use the example to present the prey or the animalistic survival view on humans. Yet, I don't think an extreme example where you need to fight for water (since it apparently took days to get water to New Orleans. Should've been a joke) quite portraits how human beings would act, if they were not forced to.
That said, I am to a large extent the naïve optimist that believes in good in people. That is, a drug dealer would have chosen another life style had he been given more options in life. So, the problem to a large extent is not human natural behaviour - it is opportunities.
That said sick people of various kinds will always be there in a minority and we need the law to control the elements of the extreme - both sick people and also "good" people finding them in strong emotional situations - like when they are about to take the law into their own hands. As I said, I always tend to see the good in people as long as they are given options and are treated right. I think, a complete utopian idea here, that is all people had been treaten right in their upbringing (whatever that is) and been given decent amounts of options, we would not have that many cases to deal with.
Quite a different view than yours, huh? :)
homo homini lupus?
- this is a quote from the philosoph hobbes, which means: humans are like a wolf to other humans. they stick together, for examample fight together against opponents, but when you throw a bone to them, theyll bite each other...
another philosoph said that the difference between animals and humans is, that humans have a pervers amusement while afflicting or killing other humans.
of course i totally disagree with these attitudes. as i said i have little problems with english so i hope you dont misunderstood me.
you are right with your thinking, that you always try to see the "good" things in people, because everyone has weakpoints. so when you search for them, youll always find something. just try to see the good side of a person- its absolutely my opinion.
and youre also right, that there are a lot of different causes which influences a persons behaviour: family,society, state, experiences, economic-conditions, culture... and so on.
of course i also thought about all that...
what i wrote before sound stereotype and superficially, but only because i need a few hundred pages to light all the aspects and explain them. so i only wrote and explained one simple aspect (the necessity of punishment to retain peace -or- sometimes you need to use violence if you want to conserve peace).
by the way, THOUSANDS! of people die EVERY DAY! because they have no water. there are wars going on in more than 50 countries. you know the holocost i guess - belive me, the treatments of the civilians in the war zones arent more humane or better nowadays than 60 years ago in germany!
in 3 month ill move to afrika. i already lived there for a few years. l here in germany, i have a lot of friends who are refugees from different countries.
i wont tell you what cruel things going on in many countries.
as i said, my big ambition is peace, for me as well as for all "good" people.
i think you misunderstood me a bit; im not the pessimist who thinks all humans are bad..., im a pacifist, im far away from being wise, but im experienced enough to know that sometimes you MUST use violence on other people, otherwise there is no justice for the good people who only want to live in peace.
one question at the end: imagine you live 60 years ago. the nazis wanna take over the world and kill all non germans, to retain the german race.
do you really think it would be bad to stop them by using force???
do you still think its always bad to use force to retain peace???
Quote from: Hektor;196243homo homini lupus?
- this is a quote from the philosoph hobbes, which means: humans are like a wolf to other humans. they stick together, for examample fight together against opponents, but when you throw a bone to them, theyll bite each other...
another philosoph said that the difference between animals and humans is, that humans have a pervers amusement while afflicting or killing other humans.
of course i totally disagree with these attitudes. as i said i have little problems with english so i hope you dont misunderstood me.
you are right with your thinking, that you always try to see the "good" things in people, because everyone has weakpoints. so when you search for them, youll always find something. just try to see the good side of a person- its absolutely my opinion.
and youre also right, that there are a lot of different causes which influences a persons behaviour: family,society, state, experiences, economic-conditions, culture... and so on.
of course i also thought about all that...
what i wrote before sound stereotype and superficially, but only because i need a few hundred pages to light all the aspects and explain them. so i only wrote and explained one simple aspect (the necessity of punishment to retain peace -or- sometimes you need to use violence if you want to conserve peace).
by the way, THOUSANDS! of people die EVERY DAY! because they have no water. there are wars going on in more than 50 countries. you know the holocost i guess - belive me, the treatments of the civilians in the war zones arent more humane or better nowadays than 60 years ago in germany!
in 3 month ill move to afrika. i already lived there for a few years. l here in germany, i have a lot of friends who are refugees from different countries.
i wont tell you what cruel things going on in many countries.
as i said, my big ambition is peace, for me as well as for all "good" people.
i think you misunderstood me a bit; im not the pessimist who thinks all humans are bad..., im a pacifist, im far away from being wise, but im experienced enough to know that sometimes you MUST use violence on other people, otherwise there is no justice for the good people who only want to live in peace.
one question at the end: imagine you live 60 years ago. the nazis wanna take over the world and kill all non germans, to retain the german race.
do you really think it would be bad to stop them by using force???
do you still think its always bad to use force to retain peace???
Thing is, environment again. If Germans hadn't been put under such completely unrealistic terms with regards to trade and indebtment after WW1 which made the reconstruction impossible - one in four kids did not make the age of 1 year for instance due to food problems and lack of decent treatment - would Hitler have been given mandate?
I am curious, how old are you Hektor?
you ALWAYS have the freedom to decide your own actions!!! of course when you grew up in a poor state and you have barely enough to eat, the tempation to do a crime (stealing...) is even bigger, but think about this: you life in sudan. you steal a bread because otherwise you will probably die- you can call it self-preservation.
so far so good. but, the bread you stole was property of a man. because of you stealing his bread, he hasnt enough to feed his 3 children, so maybe one must die of starvation...
even in this extreme situation, you have the freedom to decide your own actions!
you always have different possibilities. you musnt choose the life of a drug dealer here in germany. everyone get enough money from the state to survive.
when someone choose to be a drugdealer or a thief, or a robber, then because of greed. and for that, you musnt be charitable. everyone is responsible for his own actions
im 25:)
you are right with thw treaty of versailles after ww1. it causes the 2nd ww in many different aspects.
but that was only an example. the history of mankind is a history of wars. there was no age without wars. and unfotunately... i dont think itll ever stop.
i think always civilians, woman, children... innocent people have to suffer.
in my opinion everyone has the right to life hiis life in a peaceful society, and i just wanted to point out that its very important to remove all the anti social elements(like murderers, nazis, thiefs, drugdealers...). only when you do that, people who wanna life in peace, have the chance to do so.
Quote from: Hektor;196251you ALWAYS have the freedom to decide your own actions!!! of course when you grew up in a poor state and you have barely enough to eat, the tempation to do a crime (stealing...) is even bigger, but think about this: you life in sudan. you steal a bread because otherwise you will probably die- you can call it self-preservation.
so far so good. but, the bread you stole was property of a man. because of you stealing his bread, he hasnt enough to feed his 3 children, so maybe one must die of starvation...
even in this extreme situation, you have the freedom to decide your own actions!
you always have different possibilities. you musnt choose the life of a drug dealer here in germany. everyone get enough money from the state to survive.
when someone choose to be a drugdealer or a thief, or a robber, then because of greed. and for that, you musnt be charitable. everyone is responsible for his own actions
Aye, you have the freedom. But as I said, a) environment including b) decent upbringing reduces this severely imho. If you are raised not to steal and if there is no need to do so, then you probably wouldn't.
Drug dealers in Denmark (same thing plenty of money from the government, Denmark is probably the one country in the world that really ooses money out here) are still becoming so because of problems with either a or b (or both). I doubt few (but some) people become drug dealers, because they wanted it or desired it, even for the quick money. I bet they had a higher dream they couldn't attain. I guess what I'm saying is that, still, options would reduce it severely.
But that said, if you have limited options, going the criminal way should still be punished and yes, probably due to greed or some temptation, and yes you are responsible for your own actions. But being tempted by money as a quick way to get a better car fx. does not compare to the example with New Orleans where you steal water or else you'd die. So, I guess the conclusion I have, is that a and b greatly reduces the problems but you will still have some, as you mentioned due to greed, that will be tempted to do stuff that somehow hurts society.
Hektor? There's an EDIT-button you know.
Quote from: Hektor;196254you are right with thw treaty of versailles after ww1. it causes the 2nd ww in many different aspects.
but that was only an example. the history of mankind is a history of wars. there was no age without wars. and unfotunately... i dont think itll ever stop.
i think always civilians, woman, children... innocent people have to suffer.
in my opinion everyone has the right to life hiis life in a peaceful society, and i just wanted to point out that its very important to remove all the anti social elements(like murderers, nazis, thiefs, drugdealers...). only when you do that, people who wanna life in peace, have the chance to do so.
I know, and having a world where environment benefits everyone to the fullest is unrealistic. My point was back to the original point, that people prey on others, to which I disagree. I instead believe in the good in people and that most of these actions are done as secondary to what people really wanted to do instead due to limitations in options and what you are being pushed to do in order to survive (the latter in reference to WW1 and New Orleans). To this, as mentioned, there are of course the extreme and sick exceptions in strong minority. This applies again to the categories of asocial elements you mention.
Quote from: DuVeL;196215You allright now Rizzy?
Or are you now going Cold Turky?
The come downs not all it could be actually Pete, my heads a bit scrambled & I've had the most weirdest of dreams over the last few nights.
Not to hijack the thread, but in case anyone wondered why I was in hospital in the 1st place, I was finally having my follow up op on my kidney that I originally posted about back in September last year. The surgery went great - just had a bit of trouble friday night when the combination of the air they'd blew me up with for the keyhole surgery & the 3 days of constipation from the painkillers made me feel about ready to explode.
I'm feeling ok now though, just got a shaved side & some stitches for my troubles :boxing:
this sounds like john locke. he said the identity of a person is independent from time or matter. which means, the identity of a person is eternal and does never change. even in case of reincarnation for example, because consciousness and spirit isnt bonded to the matter (body).
consciousness and cognition creates the ego. its a circulation like karma ans samsara. but the identity of a human is merely an aggregation of sensations, and there is no possibility of changing.
im more convinced about what descartes, the founder of the 2 substances theorie, or dualism (the science of body and soul), said to this.
all humans have the "lumen naturae", the light of rationality.
he sees the soul, the identity of a human not as an aggregation of substances, but as indepensent and defineable anytime(alike sartre).
im sure you know about the "age of enlightment", because its an imoprtant event in european history. immanuel kant, in my opinion the most important philosoph of the age of enlightment said: "enlightment is the liberation of people from their self made nonage. and nonage is the inability to use the own sanity without help from stangers".
(i hope my translation is correct, because its an important quote)
what he want to say - and what im also convinced of - is, not everyone has a philosophic mind, not everyone has sanity and reason, but only because they dont use it, not because they arent able to!
everyone has the option because everyone has rationality! rationality is not a privilege of rich people or people who grew up in good economic conditions! rationality is a privilege of every human being!!!
everyone has the potential of thinking rational, and with this base everyone also has the potential of acting rational!
the fact that a lot of people dont use sanity, doesnt change the fact that they are all able to. a lot of people prefer it to let other people think and decide for them. still today its so, just look at all the totalitarin dictatorships, all the oppression, all the injustice. the people just bearing it because they dont think and use sanity. "de omnibus dubitandum!"- but who does?
as i said everyone has the option how to act, because of that, everyone is responsible for how he act.
even when sommeone lives in a very poor state under badest circumstances, i think its arrogant to say he is poor or stupid so he dont know better or he has no other chance, when he do a crime. even in the most extreme situations, everyone can use his rationaity and act righteous.
Some heavy reading there gents. From what I can decipher this has turned into a nature / nurture discussion and for once I feel somewhat out of my depth with some of the philosophy that is being spread.
I'm intrigued as to which way you guys see it, is a person defined by there surroundings of is it a genetic thing (or both). I've read a few books on it, mainly before I had kids to see if I could blame bad behavior on their genetics rather than my parenting skills.
Personally I believe you are a product of your upbringing and surroundings and after a certain age your mental capacity is defined and at that point you either have - for want of a better phrase - moral fortitude or you don't. Some people can resist the obvious temptation, some can't.
I have a close friend serving 13 years for drug related crimes and as a friend he is as supportive as he could possibly be. You couldn't meet a more engaging, witty and generous person, however, academically he failed and was bullied at school. His path in life went through door work and gym ownership and one thing led to another.
I don't condone drug use or dealing and he is the first to say he got what he deserved, but his paths after a certain point were limited if he wanted legal money based on the foundation he had.
To quote a somewhat less popular philosophical statement - 'You pays your money, you takes your choice'.
Oh and welcome back Riz, also Hektor, your posts are more than readable so don't appologise for your English. The only request I would have is stick the odd break half way down a paragraph, it's killing my eyes.
Thanks and welcome to dMw
Quote from: Benny;196506[...]Personally I believe you are a product of your upbringing and surroundings and after a certain age your mental capacity is defined and at that point you either have - for want of a better phrase - moral fortitude or you don't. Some people can resist the obvious temptation, some can't. [..]
Cheers for a good post Benny.
I guess the nature discussion has been rather vague on whether we are dealing with the human capacity to be rational AND/OR capacity to be ethical. I guess Hektor says, that being rational implicitly means being empathic enough to understand the moral in your actions?
Moral fortitude is then, in your view, something that is nurtured/result of interactions with society? I tend to believe that. There is probably some basic level of good/bad feeling in people, prob. from pure survival and instinct combined with feelings, but I guess society dictates and teaches what is right and wrong. Now, that would lead me down to the Socrates/Sofists debate IIRC whether humans have a universal moral or not. I say, look at culture studies and see how different cultures are with respect to ethics.
I haven't got time to do the full google bit, but I guess a study of that girl that was raised by animals would be a good place to start.
Also a friend has a mentally ill child who is 14, who doesn't understand right from wrong, would it be hardwired in before an illness? Cue conversations about the remaining 2/3 of your brain, is that where morals are kept?
hi
now this becomes very interesting, because ethics is one of the most important philosophic categories (besides epistemologie and metaphysics). only in my opinion of course.
are there any criteria for the action of humans, which are eternal, absolute, universal, cross cultural and relevant for every human being?
well, there are no evidence for that and no one can prove it logically, because its metaphysics and metaphysical objekts are beyond recognition.
some people think, that its absurd to spend time, thinking about metephysics, while everyone already know from the beginning, that humans arent able to detect anything...
but i think that metaphysical objekts are far too important to let them unnoticed; its always worth it to occupy oneself with that. for instance, everyone knows, that no one is ever able to detect god, neither rational, nor empiric. but this is the most important topic for everyone, so its always worth it to think about.
back to ethics. its a fact, that every nation, every culture and every society has different moral conceptions. but its a logical fallacy to conclude that it should be so.
logically, you can never deduce a value judgement, from an empiric fact.
an empiric fact can be at most a plausibility-argument, but never a criterion for ethics.
also, people tend to idealize nature. people say when something is natural, then its good for humans, if something is unnatural, its bad for humans. for example unnatural baviour, unnatural way of living, and so on.
also, an empiric fact, something that you see everywhere in nature, is never an ethic criteria.
this brings me to your example. i think you mean the boy who grew up alone in a forest. he grew up without any influence of civilisation other humans, culture or society.
normally, everyone is conditioned by his social environment, which leads to different moral conceptions, as said before.
but this boy grew up without any influence, so you can say that he is closest to the pure human nature.
rosseau, the avowed frensh philosoph, wrote a book about this boy. by studying the boys behaviour, he tried to find out what the real human nature is and with this knowledge, he wanted to construct an universal ethics.
but as i already explained, nature can never be a moral criteria.
otherwise, when you observe that a lot of primitive race are cannibals, and also so many animals are cannibals too,, you must conduct that it is good, because its natural!
summarizing, im sure that there is a universal ethics for every human being. the fact that every society has its own moral is no argument against it.
... now i wrot so much, but i actually didnt say what i wanted to... well ill make another post.
Quote from: Hektor;196658[..]are there any criteria for the action of humans, which are eternal, absolute, universal, cross cultural and relevant for every human being? well, there are no evidence for that and no one can prove it logically, because its metaphysics and metaphysical objekts are beyond recognition
Do you believe that if we could map out any physical and chemical relations in humans down to the lowest level, sort of saying that we learn how the human engine works and we understand how components interact chemically to create various interactions and emotions - can we then isolate generalities in behaviour? Is it a mere problem of a) learning the works of engine and b) learn to encompass all variables (there must be lots!) in order to do so, and maybe even start predicting human behaviour, or is it more complex than so? ASSUMING that we know all physical and chemical aspects of the human machine, can we do that? Theoretical game here speaking, not a discussion of whether we could map out all that stuff - even though I personally believe in this will be solved someday. Which is kinda sad really.
Quote from: Hektor;196658logically, you can never deduce a value judgement, from an empiric fact. an empiric fact can be at most a plausibility-argument, but never a criterion for ethics.
True, not conclusive, due to many factors. But you can get close.
Quote from: Hektor;196658also, people tend to idealize nature. people say when something is natural, then its good for humans, if something is unnatural, its bad for humans.
Now you are doing the deduction game... and assuming stuff.
I have to keep my answers short Hektor :)
Quote from: delanvital;196662Do you believe that if we could map out any physical and chemical relations in humans down to the lowest level, sort of saying that we learn how the human engine works and we understand how components interact chemically to create various interactions and emotions - can we then isolate generalities in behaviour? Is it a mere problem of a) learning the works of engine and b) learn to encompass all variables (there must be lots!) in order to do so, and maybe even start predicting human behaviour, or is it more complex than so? ASSUMING that we know all physical and chemical aspects of the human machine, can we do that? Theoretical game here speaking, not a discussion of whether we could map out all that stuff - even though I personally believe in this will be solved someday. Which is kinda sad really.
True, not conclusive, due to many factors. But you can get close.
Now you are doing the deduction game... and assuming stuff.
I have to keep my answers short Hektor :)
you are right, my mind straggle a lot :rolleyes:
ill try to give straight answers about what i think.
im convined, that we are more than merely materia. thinking, feeling, emotions..., you cant reduce it to chemical processes.
im sure humans have a unique soul. as i said i can never prove it. its what im convinced of.
to take your example, when a human being (with his spirit his mind...) can be reduced to physikal correlation, and when we have the scientific knowledge to analyze everything one day,(atoms and so on) than we are able to create a a person, a mind by just bringing the right atoms together.
which means for example by analyzing all the atoms in your body, taking the same kind of atoms and bringing them together in the right order, exactly in the order how they are in your body, then ive created exactly the same person. then i have 2 persons who are exactly the same; same body of course, but also same charakter, same personality, same memories, same experiences, same feelings, same thoughts, same will... everything is in total concurrence. then there are 2 delanvitals and everyone is exactly the same person with exactly the same personality as the other.
did i understand you correct?
well, this sounds very strange doessnt it?
as i said, i think that there is more that compose a human being. something which isnt tangible, something unique and eternal. something, ill call it soul, which isnt enduring bonded to the body, because it is no matter, and because of that beyond knowledge. of course i cant give you any prove...
its what i belive.
you can never predict a humans behavior, because humans have a free will!
in every situation, everyone can choose from different options. imagine i kill someone and say, i had no choice, because i have some bag genes, so im not responsible and you cant punish me for that- ridiculous isnt it? i always have the free will and i can always decide how i act.
An interesting clash we have here Hektor.
Me, I am an atheist, and a very strong one at that, and I guess I belong to the scientific camp. That means, I believe that we are simply no more than matter functioning in a fun way. Our conscience and every aspect of it, even what makes us human, can in the end be mapped and explained. There is nothing particular to being human.
Free will... I wonder on that a lot. Thing is, if we don't have it, then if you think about it, there is no point in being here with a conscience and being aware of the world around you. Sadly. We are then just reproducing because of the urge to do so and our awareness of ourself is a curse. If we could see this lack of free will it would be like being stuck in a car going in one direction only and we would never be able to get off. Hopefully, we are not aware of it.
I think I believe (nice sentence, eh?) that we have some functionality attached to our conscience, some ability to make independent choice. But what if that is merely a complex algoritm (however you spell that) that is result of a complex mix environmental influences, genes and such? That passes as a conscience, and might lead to some uniqueness in minor decisions, but in essense we are a functional mind running the same overall patters which we just can't comprehend?
I know there is a paradox - I can't make up my mind about free will, whether we have one or nor, not yet.
Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat. Then you'll know if you were right or wrong. Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:
TL.
Quote from: TeaLeaf;196889Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat. Then you'll know if you were right or wrong. Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:
TL.
Lol and now we've moved into quantum physics as well...
Assuming the way we prove stuff is valid... and seeing science as an ongoing process of continuous new ideas (and falsification) instead of just a static image of what Niels Bohr, Einstein and others went on about in, what, the 20's - well, yeah, it does? :bleh:
Quote from: TeaLeaf;196889Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat. Then you'll know if you were right or wrong. Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:
TL.
what is schrodingers box? is it something like pandoras box?
Quote from: delanvital;196681An interesting clash we have here Hektor.
Me, I am an atheist, and a very strong one at that, and I guess I belong to the scientific camp. That means, I believe that we are simply no more than matter functioning in a fun way. Our conscience and every aspect of it, even what makes us human, can in the end be mapped and explained. There is nothing particular to being human.
Free will... I wonder on that a lot. Thing is, if we don't have it, then if you think about it, there is no point in being here with a conscience and being aware of the world around you. Sadly. We are then just reproducing because of the urge to do so and our awareness of ourself is a curse. If we could see this lack of free will it would be like being stuck in a car going in one direction only and we would never be able to get off. Hopefully, we are not aware of it.
I think I believe (nice sentence, eh?) that we have some functionality attached to our conscience, some ability to make independent choice. But what if that is merely a complex algoritm (however you spell that) that is result of a complex mix environmental influences, genes and such? That passes as a conscience, and might lead to some uniqueness in minor decisions, but in essense we are a functional mind running the same overall patters which we just can't comprehend?
I know there is a paradox - I can't make up my mind about free will, whether we have one or nor, not yet.
its exhausting to argue about metaphisics isnt it? :rolleyes:
i think i believe its a question of faith not of thinking. well, thats what i belive... i think... :g:
(also not bad hu?) :D
is it in your opinion possible to make an artificial intelligence which is alike humans?
you said, that there is nothing special on a human being, so to follow your argumentation, humans must be able, technical knowledge assumed, to create an artificial intelligence which is exactly like the intelligence of a "normal" human being. would you say that this is possible?
Quote from: Benny;196561I haven't got time to do the full google bit, but I guess a study of that girl that was raised by animals would be a good place to start.
Also a friend has a mentally ill child who is 14, who doesn't understand right from wrong, would it be hardwired in before an illness? Cue conversations about the remaining 2/3 of your brain, is that where morals are kept?
im not sure about mental disease. youre right its a special case. you say she doesnt know if something is right or wrong. is that so in every situation?
what i mean is, does she know that killing a human is wrong? - well i guess she know that, because otherwise something terrible already happened.
maybe she also know that its wrong to hurt other people... so only in some cases she dont knoe how to behave?
well, as i said before, i think everyone know right and wrong. people with mental diseases need a lot of help from other people, because they arent so concious thus far as other people are. we all have to learn the right behavior of course, maybe when someone is handicapped, he learn, only much slower...
well, its a good aspect that you mentioned, and i must admit i havent thought so much about it, but ill do
Quote from: Hektor;197351its exhausting to argue about metaphisics isnt it? :rolleyes:
i think i believe its a question of faith not of thinking. well, thats what i belive... i think... :g:
(also not bad hu?) :D
is it in your opinion possible to make an artificial intelligence which is alike humans?
you said, that there is nothing special on a human being, so to follow your argumentation, humans must be able, technical knowledge assumed, to create an artificial intelligence which is exactly like the intelligence of a "normal" human being. would you say that this is possible?
As you say techical knowledge assumed, yes I believed so.
Quote from: delanvital;197387As you say techical knowledge assumed, yes I believed so.
i see. have you ever heard of the chinese room?
its an example from a philosoph, im afraid i forgot his name, to the topic ai.
imagine there is a room. there is only one table with a book on it and left and right to the table, there is a hole. a person sits on the table. sometimes, there comes a piece of paper out of the left hole. on the paper is a chinese ideographs. the person who sits on the table isnt able to understand the letters, but in his book he has a list of every possible incomming chinese letter, so he can compare the form of the letter with those in his book.
so the book is like a dictionary, but he isnt able tto understand the translation as well, because the translation is in japanese, which he also didnt understand.
everytime he gets a letter in chinese from the left hole, he must look up the letter in his dictionary, compare it, and find the suitable letter to it in japanese. when he found the right letter, he must put it into the hole to his right side.
as you see, every human is able to do this.
because the letters are hieroglyphics, we wouldnt understand, but when someone give us this book, we are able to do this task of "traanslation", even if we didnt understand the true meaning of the words, because its only get letters from the left hole, looking at hieroglyphics, compare it with the book, take the adequate hieroglyphics and put it into the right hole.
so far so good.
does the person really understand the words or is there any sense, sanity or autonomous thinking required for these actions?
this is exactly the way a computer is working. he has no intelligence, because everything he is doing, is given to him, is programmed. he can "translate", but he isnt able to understand! he isnt able to think and decide autonomous, because he can only acting thus far as his programer programmed him. he just look up in a dictionary and "translate" hieroglyphics which he didnt understand.
and his "intelligence" only reach so far as his programmer has given him vocabulary.
with technological improvement, men can only enlarge the vocabulary, but the precept will stay the same.
he has no free will, he isnt "smart" and he isnt able to do "own"decisions.
im sure that someday computers will be able to do a lot of things much better than humans can do (they already do in some cases), but theyll never be able to be free in "thinking", autonomous and rational and theyll never UNDERSTAND!!!