Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Agathon]

I have no clue what you are asking. It has value because it is part of your autonomy. You are better off with it because even if you don't have anything to say, the government is not limiting you in that, but you, yourself are.

But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction.

I mean, what more are you getting at? I think that's pretty damned valuable in itself. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean that it doesn't have any.

What's valuable about it independently of what you can do with it? Your previous example was self contradictory, so you'll have to indulge me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society.

It increases liberty of society, which is as important or more so than yours.

Rational is considering everything.

No, it isn't. Rational is the ability to reason, ie, make logical/analytic arguments. You don't have to consider everything to make a logical argument, just relevent things.

Considering everything is more a product of liberalism, not rationalism.

No. It's making unbiased assumptions.

Everyone has bias. You may think you are making an unbiased assumption, but you really are not. It is a product of your inherant biases (of which you have many).

Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth?

I don't think so, but he made rational arguments for Christian beliefs. That is rationality, NOT 'consider everything'.

They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin.

It seems you believe in a similar idea. If you were to go out of your bias, I'd die of shock.

Seeing that you are biased towards yourself

As are you, more than anyone else on this site, frankly. You have been more than willing to twist any subject to suit your bias.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction.

But you have the option of saying something. If you aren't going to say something, someone else may something that may benefit you. Besides if you have nothing worth saying ever, then you are not human, IMO.

Your abstraction has no relation to reality, so I don't see the point of your abstraction (kind of the same thing with Rawls' work, if the abstraction is absurd, the whole example comes down like a house of cards).

[bipolarbear]

Hey, at least "boobies" isn't blocked

They don't call the m"boobies" in china. They are called Chi Chis

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction.

But you have the option of saying something.

But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre.

Your abstraction has no relation to reality, so I don't see the point of your abstraction (kind of the same thing with Rawls' work, if the abstraction is absurd, the whole example comes down like a house of cards).

Of course it doesn't – that's the point. It is a thought experiment designed to isolate the source of value from contingent factors and display it's essence (the meaning of the term, to be a bit more modern). I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis.

And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society.

It increases liberty of society, which is as important or more so than yours.

Liberty independent of happiness has no value. For example the freedom to own property only has as much value as the property that you actually own, and the happiness that it brings you.

Rational is considering everything.

No, it isn't. Rational is the ability to reason, ie, make logical/analytic arguments. You don't have to consider everything to make a logical argument, just relevent things.

Relevent to happiness? Who's happiness? Just your own?

Considering everything is more a product of liberalism, not rationalism.

You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things.

No. It's making unbiased assumptions.

Everyone has bias. You may think you are making an unbiased assumption, but you really are not. It is a product of your inherant biases (of which you have many).

True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments.

Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth?

I don't think so, but he made rational arguments for Christian beliefs. That is rationality, NOT 'consider everything'.

Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational.

They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin.

It seems you believe in a similar idea. If you were to go out of your bias, I'd die of shock.

On what basis do you make this judgement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre.

Autonomy is another way of saying liberty (more or less). People like choosing the outcome that gives them more liberty to do what they want (as a general principle, not all the time).

As for the you don't know if you are autonomous, you can claim that for anything. Ie, you can say that you aren't certain if you are equal anyway, depending on how equality is measured.

I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis.

And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis.

That's the problem. I don't think those abstractions are logically possible. I think that is one of the major failings of philosophy, these unrealistic worlds to explain concepts. What some philosophers consider 'irrelevent' and 'accidental' others may consider essential as a base part of human life. Such as the 'boring world'. It is a base part of humanity to have opinions how they should be able to live. You can't seperate that out and have anything that applies to reality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Liberty independent of happiness has no value.

And equality independant of happiness has value? And whose happiness? A majority of society? A vast majority of society? Every single, solitary person?

You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things.

When someone asks you how do you justify equality, do you consider Fascist political theory? Roman society? It'd take you 50 years to come up with a precursory answer.

All you have to consider is the view(s) you are being immediately contested with.

True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments.

No, they THINK they can make unbiased arguments even though they can see where they are biased. It doesn't work.

Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational.

Of course it is. Logical thought is part of the definition of reason, which is part of the definition of rational.

No one can make an unbiased argument, so what you are saying is that no one is rational.

On what basis do you make this judgement?

All I have to do is to point to a number of your political posts. Though your rants against rent take the cake!

You are a socialist, so heaven forbid if a right winger makes a moral judgment... to you it MUST be wrong! It's inherant in your biased outlook on life.

Don't feel bad though, we all do it. Though some of us, once in a while, can recognize that the other side may be correct.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre.

Autonomy is another way of saying liberty (more or less). People like choosing the outcome that gives them more liberty to do what they want (as a general principle, not all the time).

People like it. Is that where the value inheres? It certainly apppears that it can't be universally liked, so it's not going to help as a bearer of intrinsic value unless you become a relativist, in which case there was no point looking for the answer in the first place.

As for the you don't know if you are autonomous, you can claim that for anything. Ie, you can say that you aren't certain if you are equal anyway, depending on how equality is measured.

You can point to objectively verifiable facts in most cases of equality, but not in the case of autonomy. In fact liberty seems to be at odds with the scientific view of the human person.

I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis.

And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis.

That's the problem. I don't think those abstractions are logically possible. I think that is one of the major failings of philosophy, these unrealistic worlds to explain concepts. What some philosophers consider 'irrelevent' and 'accidental' others may consider essential as a base part of human life. Such as the 'boring world'. It is a base part of humanity to have opinions how they should be able to live. You can't seperate that out and have anything that applies to reality.

They are logically possible, given what "logically possible" means. It is logically impossible to have a married bachelor or a round square. A logically possible world is simply one that recognizes those restrictions but no others. It so happens that synonymies are preserved in every logically possible world, which is what makes it a useful device for conceptual analysis.

I'm not speaking of "irrelevant" and "accidental" in the way you are using them. I am using them in a specific sense that is contrasted with "essential". What people "consider" is of no importance. Being six foot tall is an accidental feature of a bachelor – being a man is an essential feature. Being six feet tall is irrevelant to "bachelorness" – being a man is not. Someone who disagrees is either wrong, or is misusing the English word.

You say that it is essential to a human being to be able to have opinions about how to live? What about people who are in non-autonomous states? Are they no longer persons.

(and the test for whether this is an essential feature of humanity is of course the logically possible worlds test, in that humans should have this across all logically possible worlds in which they exist if your claim is true).

[Imran Siddiqui]

unless you become a relativist

You don't read my posts do you?

You can point to objectively verifiable facts in most cases of equality

Maybe that we look similar... but even biologically, some of us are faster, some of us are smarter. Maybe we have an equal potential, but that isn't very verifiable.

What about people who are in non-autonomous states? Are they no longer persons.

Like Terry Schiavo? Yeah, I'd consider them in a lesser state of humanity.

and the test for whether this is an essential feature of humanity is of course the logically possible worlds test, in that humans should have this across all logically possible worlds in which they exist if your claim is true

Bull, because the 'logically possible worlds' is lets just make up what I think and say it is a "logical world" and then I can justify anything I want to. Hey look, in this world, humans don't have seratonin receptors, so happiness is worthless, etc.

[Asher]

This thread is a bunch of philosophical bull****.

I'll simplify it for you and put the stupid ethicists out of their useless jobs:

1. China will censor if Microsoft abides by their laws
2. China will censor if Microsoft does not abide by their laws

3. Microsoft will provide its products to a market and allow them to buy it
4. Microsoft will not provide products, removing competition

From 1 and 2, you see that no matter what Microsoft does, China will not alter its censorship policy.

From 3 and 4, you can see the 4th option is good for no one, and the 3rd option is good to Microsoft and its shareholders, and to the consumers in the market.

You're making a case that would remove a major competitor from the Chinese marketplace without any impact to their human rights issues, all because you're on a moral highhorse without an ounce of practicality in you.

-->>> This thread is why we don't need Ethics Philosophers and their committees to tell us what is moral and what isn't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Liberty independent of happiness has no value.

And equality independant of happiness has value? And whose happiness? A majority of society? A vast majority of society? Every single, solitary person?

People desire equality to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other. Equal rights, however, does not insure happiness for everyone. It can be important, however, to the extent that it makes people happy.

You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things.

When someone asks you how do you justify equality, do you consider Fascist political theory? Roman society? It'd take you 50 years to come up with a precursory answer.

All you have to consider is the view(s) you are being immediately contested with.

Which is why Christians are not rational, because they only consider views that are consistant with the Bible.

True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments.

No, they THINK they can make unbiased arguments even though they can see where they are biased. It doesn't work.

Why do you think that people are incapable of making unbiased judgements?

Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational.

Of course it is. Logical thought is part of the definition of reason, which is part of the definition of rational.

Well you can avoid breaking the rules of logic and still not be reasonable, because you are free to make any biased premise, no matter how unreasonable.

No one can make an unbiased argument, so what you are saying is that no one is rational.

This claim seems quite absurd. Try and prove it.

On what basis do you make this judgement?

All I have to do is to point to a number of your political posts. Though your rants against rent take the cake!

You are a socialist, so heaven forbid if a right winger makes a moral judgment... to you it MUST be wrong! It's inherant in your biased outlook on life.

Don't feel bad though, we all do it. Though some of us, once in a while, can recognize that the other side may be correct.

I'm not biased simply because you disagree with me. Is that the best argument you can come up with?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
From 1 and 2, you see that no matter what Microsoft does, China will not alter its censorship policy.

Isn't it obvious that China's ability to oppress it's people is increased because Microsoft agrees to sell the new software?

[Imran Siddiqui]

People desire equality to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other.

People desire liberty to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other.

Which is why Christians are not rational, because they only consider views that are consistant with the Bible.

Nice generalization! Do you think every Christian is a fundamentalist? What about those who have liberal interpretations of the Bible?

Why do you think that people are incapable of making unbiased judgements?

How can someone seperate out all their experiences when making a judgement? It is because of those experiences that they believe in what they believe and that informs the starting premises and conclusions. You claim a 'biased' premise later on. Every premise is based on bias. It is based on your experiences and teachings. There is a reason why political parties find strength in certain areas. Shared experiences tend to result in shared biases, which result in shared biased premises.

They can say they want to make 'unbiased' judgements, but it all comes back to the experiences they've had since they were a kid, which shaped their beliefs and how they look at the world.

It's a nice saying, put yourself in someone else's shoes, but you don't have the experiences necessary to actually do it. You can try to imagine, but your biases will color the attempt.

I'm not biased simply because you disagree with me.

It isn't disagreement, because I think people like DinoDoc, Kuciwalker, and myself are biased as well, in our own ways.

When I look at your biased work, I come to that discussion where we were discussing why Toyota raised their prices. You immediately jumped on the 'they are doing this because they are going to make more profit' reason as a result of your anti-corporation bias. You backed away very quickly when it was pointed out how silly that was. Kuci detailed your pwnage very nicely, and how in the end, you shifted positions to agree that the actual reason Toyota did it was so they could avoid tariffs placed by the US government, but then acted like that was what you were saying all along.

It was amusing, but your biased showed with your anti-corporation rant before you even seemed to think the entire issue through.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Isn't it obvious that China's ability to oppress it's people is increased because Microsoft agrees to sell the new software?

Wha? So if Microsoft decided not to sell the new software, China's people are less oppressed?

So if no one from the West sold to China, the people would be much less oppressed than they are now?

Frankly, I think that Western values and culture which comes in from trade results in a more positive change than shutting trade out. In fact, I think that was the smarter thing to do with Cuba.