I have officially changed my position on the liberal arts in universities
 

Kuciwalker is good for that. I told you he's not human. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/nod.gif Everything must be quantifiable for him.


Universities originally were not just for training people into a profession but to develop well-rounded and informed individuals.

This is the quote that did it for me:
Asher, if your idea of morality can't answer the question of something like "how much should we spend on medical care", then how useful is it?

I doubt Asher was suggesting people should study Philosophy as a major... but that they should take a philosophy class or two, an arts class, a history class, etc. as part of their electives.

Actually, most universities have a core curriculum in which most majors have to take at least one philosophy class, one art class, one social sciences class, etc. along with the classes that are related to their major.

I know many people who got liberal arts degrees making six figures. Perhaps its the kind of jobs you are looking for that are the problem, or what you are willing to do. Also, don't underestimate the utter terribleness of the job market for over two years and its role in it being hard to find a job.

Did their liberal arts degrees actually help them to obtain their jobs, and if so, were said jobs outside of academia?

They must not be helping as many people. By going into a more successful career, you produce more, which increases the amount of money the country can spend on healthcare, saving lives. Be an engineer, it's the moral thing to do!

Well that's because while you code stuff, they are able to explain the relationship between Duchamp's rejection of 'retinal art' and Jean Baudrillard's second and third order simulacra http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/nod.gif

The amusing thing about this thread is that the definition of the question of morality I was using is the one the philosophy 101 professor had up at the start of our first lecture...

There's a reason he was teaching the 101 course at a school not known for its liberal arts.

I specifically avoided bringing filosofy into it because your predictable response would be "lol filosofy", but I daresay I know more than you about moral philosophy as an academic subject... Impossible, given your statements about how you think people should be valued in terms of dollars and basic misunderstanding of the concept of morality not as a concept of good and evil/right and wrong, but a concept of economic practicality. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/neeschud.gif

Philosophers from Nietzsche to John Dewey would say you're wrong, Asher.

You shouldn't care. God knows why you keep replying with your inanities.

As for defining good and evil, why do you continue to ask questions you know to be unanswerable? Do you do it because you're a pompous ass who thinks he's setting a trap for a simpleton, or do you do it because you genuinely do not understand it's not an answerable question?

Everyone has different morals, there are no absolutes. There is no strict definition of good and evil. Stop wasting my time.

If you believe this, why did you ever even start arguing about what is moral?

Asher, any ethical calculus rooted in consequentialism (which has dominated ethical thinking since Jeremy Bentham) would necessarily have to consider the practicalities of a chosen alternative. You seem to have a deontological conception of ethics which is fine but you have to understand that any value judgments you make about the correctness of an action are purely subjective and arbitrary. At least a teleological ethical system can 'measure' something, usually happiness, and determine an action to be correct if it generated more 'well-being' than non-chosen alternatives.

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.

Here's a question for you, Asher: Would you say that there are actions that are categorically wrong?


EDIT: I guess my post isn't really relevant anymore http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Yes, but I'm not asking you to define good and evil. I'm not asking unanswerable questions. I'm expressing my opinion on the issue. What do you not get here?

You missed something:

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.

There's just no way you can objectively and categorically make ethical determinations especially as there are no objective value judgments. Who is to say that Kuci's economic welfare is any more an appropriate goal and basis for morality than Nietzsche's Will to Power?

Concisely: no, it's not arbitary. If you approach ethics scientifically as the question of finding the smallest set of axioms that best explains our moral sentiments (with the tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy being handled in the usual Kolmogorov sense) then you should conclude that rule consequentialism (and, particularly, maximizing the happiness of a certain group of people) thoroughly explains almost all of our sentiments.

That's the second-best way, I think. The best is when they repeatedly are unable to answer basic questions about the topic.

Asking the strict definition of "good" and "evil" is not a basic question, and in fact it's a textbook tactic to deflect the heat in a conversation.

It's very difficult to have a debate with you about morality when you continue to not understand the definition of "morality". You even called a textbook definition of the word "factually incorrect". It was absurd.

If there were a way to tell the future, your reasoning would be correct. There is no way, in a teleological ethical system, to determine with certainty that an action is 'right' before it is undertaken. That appraisal can only come after the action is long exercised and the consequences tallied. So instead, your ethical system becomes a matter of statistical probabilities. An action is 'right' under the assumption of a particular expected outcome but if the consequences differ from that outcome, it could become 'wrong'. What is the role of justice in such a system? How is the man who kills to save 2 people treated (net effect positive)? What if he mistakingly thought he could only save those 2 people by killing a person and they all died (net effect negative)?

I don't know. It doesn't jive well with me as 'scientific'. Neither does greatest good for the greatest number. Reminds me too much of Brave New World.