Philosophy Discussion Forums

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Gates basically did **** all. Teams of underpaid people, tax evasion technicians, victims chained to crap software and crashing operating systems tearing their hair out, all paid through the nose to this parasite.

Ah . . . so people he was paying --- his employees --- paid him? That is the Newspeak definition of "stealing," I suppose? If you hire a plumber to fix a leak, pay him what he agreed to accept, are you "stealing" from him too?

You'll need to use common words with their ordinary, dictionary meanings if you wish your comments to be taken seriously, TH.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 6:39 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Gates basically did **** all. Teams of underpaid people, tax evasion technicians, victims chained to crap software and crashing operating systems tearing their hair out, all paid through the nose to this parasite.

Ah . . . so people he was paying --- his employees --- paid him? That is the Newspeak definition of "stealing," I suppose? If you hire a plumber to fix a leak, pay him what he agreed to accept, are you "stealing" from him too?

You'll need to use common words with their ordinary, dictionary meanings if you wish your comments to be taken seriously, TH.

Do you think that he alone created the wealth of MS?

Continuing GE Morton's plumber theme:

A few years ago I paid a carpenter and a plumber to install a downstairs toilet/bathroom/WC in my house. We agreed a price and they did the work. I think it added value to the house.

If I sell the house, should I track down that carpenter and plumber and give them some money? Should I give them the amount that I deem to have been added to the value of the house by the addition of the new toilet? If so, how shall I assess that value?

For the avoidance of doubt: the answer is of course "no". We agreed a price for the work to be done. We agreed in advance that they would be paid in cash, not in shares whose value could rise and fall with the value of my house.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 6:52 pm
Do you think that he alone created the wealth of MS?

Certainly not. Many helped, and were paid for that help at the time it was delivered, at some mutually agreed upon price.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 27th, 2018, 9:50 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 27th, 2018, 4:06 pm
Well, the main difference between justice and vengeance is that one is performed by a sanctioned arm of the state and the other is meted out by individuals without supervision/oversight.

Well, you seem to have invented your own definitions of those two terms.

I am interested in your definitions where justice is weilded by individuals and vengeance by the state.

GE Morton wrote:Certainly not. Many helped, and were paid for that help at the time it was delivered, at some mutually agreed upon price.

I think the conversation in this topic may now follow a similar line to that which similar conversations followed in other topics when arguing about the pros and cons of free markets. Opponents to the ("Libertarian") complete free market view of workers selling their labour to the highest bidder usually point to the fact that most workers are not completely free to do that. This argument has been made previously by such posters as Fooloso4. I've never seen ThomasHobbes make this argument coherently because he doesn't seem to be able to sustain an argument for long without just degenerating into analysis-free insults. We'll see if it's any different this time.

Here is a topic which appears to much more fully elucidate GE Morton's views on this subject:

viewtopic.php?p=309139#p309139

I seem to have missed it when it was first posted. I think I'll look at it now.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 2:16 am
I am interested in your definitions where justice is weilded by individuals and vengeance by the state.

I gave no such definitions. The definition I gave for "justice" was, "Securing to each person what he is due."

"The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/justice

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 1:38 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 11:40 am
GEMorton, I do believe that the grapes of psychology are sour for you. Indeed and there is no ideal way to predict human behaviour . . .

There is no reliable way to predict human behavior, even a less-than-ideal one. Since there is not, one cannot sensibly speak of "causes" of that behavior.

. . . however those predictions which result from knowledge and critical reflection are better than emotional reactions.

No amount of theoretical knowledge or reflection will allow Alfie to predict Bruno's behavior. It is possible, of course, for someone who knows Bruno well to predict his behavior in some situations. E.g., his wife can probably predict what he be doing next Sunday morning (watching a football game). But that is not a theoretical prediction; it is simply a projection from previously observed behavior.

Motives are a subsection of causes.

Oh, no. Motives are internal to the agent; causes are external factors forcing or triggering an event. Motives are supplied by the agent's interests --- his goals, preferences, tastes, and desires, all of which are sui generis, idiosyncratic, non-rational* and unpredictable.

*Some interests are instrumental --- "means goods," i.e., things desired because they are necessary or useful to obtaining something else. Those are (or can be) rational. "End goods" --- things desired "for their own sake" are non-rational.

Reliable is relative to a criterion of reliability. For a few hundred years we have been subjecting criteria to reason and scientific knowledge.

Previously observed behaviour is an indication of personality from the point of view of commonsense and from psychology.

If motives are "internal" , how does this indicate that motives are not caused? An agent's interests are caused by his native or acquired culture , his personal memories, his training , socialisation and formal education, his genetic inheritance, and accidents of health and other ephemeral circumstances. All of those count as causes whether or not they are known, irrational, or predictable.

On a more general note, apart from subatomic events, do you believe in uncaused events? For it would seem that you do!

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 11:50 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 2:16 am
I am interested in your definitions where justice is weilded by individuals and vengeance by the state.

I gave no such definitions. The definition I gave for "justice" was, "Securing to each person what he is due."

"The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/justice

The problem with dictionary definitions is they are designed as one liner descriptions for those with no knowledge whatsoever of what the word meaning is. As opposed to detailed descriptions of nuance.

Your definition of justice is fine... as a broad overview. With such a broad view, the common understanding of vengeance would be a subset of it.

I was not speaking of justice vs apathy, rather the workings of the Justice system vs the "street justice" of retaliation/vengeance.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 12:20 pm
Reliable is relative to a criterion of reliability. For a few hundred years we have been subjecting criteria to reason and scientific knowledge.

Yes. For A to be declared a cause of B, B must follow every occurrence of A (ceteris paribus). If B does not follow A 100% of the time you have only a correlation, not causation. A strong correlation may well point to a cause, but as long as it is less than 100% there is some factor missing from the causal complex.

Causes may be complex, of course. I.e., (A+B+C) may be the cause of D. If any of the components of the complex are missing, D may not occur (it may still occur, because there may be other causes of D apart from that complex).

Previously observed behaviour is an indication of personality from the point of view of commonsense and from psychology.

I agree. As I said above, if Alfie knows Bruno well he will be able to predict his behavior quite reliably in some situations (because he has observed Bruno's behavior previously in similar situations). That is not a theoretical prediction, however.

If motives are "internal" , how does this indicate that motives are not caused? An agent's interests are caused by his native or acquired culture , his personal memories, his training , socialisation and formal education, his genetic inheritance, and accidents of health and other ephemeral circumstances. All of those count as causes whether or not they are known, irrational, or predictable . . . On a more general note, apart from subatomic events, do you believe in uncaused events? For it would seem that you do!

I prefer to think there are no uncaused events, even subatomic ones. I agree with Einstein ("God does not play dice with the universe"). I may well be wrong about that, but I'm willing to concede that human behavior is ultimately deterministic, that interests are the causal results of an enormously complex interaction of hundreds or even thousands of genetic and environmental variables --- so complex that they will never be unraveled for any person. And as with subatomic events, some true randomness may be involved as well. But until they are unraveled sufficiently to predict at least some of Alfie's behavior with 100% reliability, one cannot say that X is the cause of those behaviors.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 7:29 pm
I was not speaking of justice vs apathy, rather the workings of the Justice system vs the "street justice" of retaliation/vengeance.

I agree there is a vernacular meaning of "justice" that equates it with vengeance. That is not the dictionary meaning, however, and not the meaning intended when I said the purpose of a criminal justice system is to secure justice for the victims of crime.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 8:10 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 7:29 pm
I was not speaking of justice vs apathy, rather the workings of the Justice system vs the "street justice" of retaliation/vengeance.

I agree there is a vernacular meaning of "justice" that equates it with vengeance. That is not the dictionary meaning, however, and not the meaning intended when I said the purpose of a criminal justice system is to secure justice for the victims of crime.

Then much ado about nothing, we are in complete agreement.

This is interesting: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AnE7M6QOWWQ

“... anger management issues.”