The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Ok, well what if the organs where no good after the person was dead?
Then yes, maybe.
But the thing is that mandatory post-mortem organ extraction would make transplant organs so plentyful, one wouldn't need to have anyone donate their organs instead.
Ok, well what if the organs where no good after the person was dead?
Then yes, maybe.
But the thing is that mandatory post-mortem organ extraction would make transplant organs so plentyful, one wouldn't need to have anyone donate their organs instead.
Don't you think that individuals should be able to decide what happens to their bodies?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
What a non-sequitur. Weren't you trying to make some sort of point about utilitarianism forcing live people to donate kidneys, with that failing, you traversed to asking questions about liberty and control of one's body, and now this?
I think some level of either moral relativism or defacto moral relativism is required for people of different backgrounds to come to an understanding, to seek common ground instead of falling back on their different ideologies and insisting furiously that they are right and their opponents are wrong.
There are many different forms of moral relativism, ranging from the well-thought-out, defensible position, to the "liberal reactionary opinion," as I like to call it.
Common challenges against moral relativism include the straw man fallacy which you used ("Obviously there are some things that are objectively true, regardless of opinion; therefore moral relativism is wrong") and the appeal to consequences ("If there are no objective standards of right or wrong, murderers and rapists would roam the street, preying on your children").
The straw man fallacy is easy to burst. Relativists do not necessarily believe that there are no such things as facts. That would lead to quite a reductio ad absurdum -- "it's a fact that there are no facts." What relativists argue is that the set of moral judgements is not a member of the set of facts. So saying, "There are facts," is quite beside the point.
The appeal to consequences is more interesting, because it betrays an assumption about the nature of power which is implicit in the objectivist's objection.
The realist believes that the relativist will be forced to admit a flaw in their reasoning because, if they can't morally condemn murderers, they can't restrain them, either. I say, How so? Oh, it'd be wrong to lock someone up in a prison, it'd violate their rights, unless you had a moral reason! But this is obviously circular reasoning. The entire concepts of rights or justice are based on realist principles, which is what relativism challenges in the first place.
A relativist can simply answer that restraining a murderer can be done on the same principle as restraining a tiger. The tiger isn't wrong, per se, for wanting to eat little children. And we aren't "justified," per se, in locking it up, or at least keeping it away from our major population centres. It's just what we do to survive a world with tigers in it. And jail is what we do to survive in a world with murderers in it, regardless of whether murder is right or wrong.
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF
Originally posted by VetLegion
It seems that pope Benedict said we are expiriencing a dictatorship of relativism.
Isn't relativism = tolerance?
So this guy wants less tolerance?
Or did I get something wrong? Please keep responses to under million words that philosophical debates get
I think you're paying too much attention to the ravings of a deranged old man.
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Ramo, your line of reasoning reminds me a lot of Greek skeptics like Sextus Empiricus. Since we can't secure absolutely secure foundations for our "knowledge", we must conclude that all our beliefs are irrational, that none of them are rationally justified. Hence we know nothing. BTW, I wonder how you can manage to believe that and still work as a scientist.
I agree with you on the shaky foundations part, but you don't have to be sceptic because of that. You can claim that our knowledge is based on shaky foundations and still believe that:
- our knowledge is fairly rational. For one, because its self-corrective. If we detect a contradiction in our belief system, we fix it; if a fact refutes our belief system, we fix it (of course, things are more complex than in reality). You seem to assume that once we decided to use a given axiom, we're stuck with it. Its clearly false, IMO.
- we actually know things (even that we know more today than we knew 2000 years ago)
Tweet
Comment