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

[JackRudd]

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 should be careful about generalizing too much from one's own country. That may be true of American universities, but it's not true of British ones. Indeed, in Britain it's fairly normal to specialize more than that when doing one's A-levels (i.e. the courses normally done over the ages of 16 to 18 - the ones done before going to university).

[Fake Boris]

Kuci, what tells you that feelings are not quantifiable? If a whole bunch of factory workers get pissed off at your class, they could riot and value your life at 0.

[Kuciwalker]

Where did I say feelings aren't quantifiable?

Not only are feelings "quantifiable" in the abstract (else the notion of utility would be meaningless!) but they are to a limited extent quantifiable in practice by examining the prices of certain goods and services.

[Kuciwalker]

You're welcome to make the argument that, in principle, someone should be able to purchase clemency for murder. The utilitarian response is that such is a system is probably unsustainable in practice.

[Kuciwalker]

Unless you're Mill, in which case you try to reify the distinction between virtuous and sinful pleasures...

[KrazyHorse]

You're welcome to make the argument that, in principle, someone should be able to purchase clemency for murder. The utilitarian response is that such is a system is probably unsustainable in practice.

Weregild

[Fake Boris]

You're welcome to make the argument that, in principle, someone should be able to purchase clemency for murder. The utilitarian response is that such is a system is probably unsustainable in practice.

See, that's the issue with your whole point. You want quantifiable data, including feelings, but you are unwilling to let your categories and concepts 'sweep' beyond those created by a mindset that fundamentally doesn't agree with your premises. Liberalism, as much as it defended economic freedom, did so by establishing a certain set of inviolable principles (i.e. not subject to 'trade', in the sense that the science of trade, 'economics' would be specific to certain objects and situations, not universal and encompassing all.)

Clemency for murder can be 'bought'; we call it a spoil of war, and history shows nothing unsustainable about that.

[Kuciwalker]

See, that's the issue with your whole point. You want quantifiable data, including feelings, but you are unwilling to let your categories and concepts 'sweep' beyond those created by a mindset that fundamentally doesn't agree with your premises.

No, I'm perfectly willing to do so*. I just think that our current society actually does a really good job of maximizing welfare, particularly compared to everything else that's been tried, and therefore making changes that threaten its stability seems like a bad idea.

Liberalism, as much as it defended economic freedom, did so by establishing a certain set of inviolable principles (i.e. not subject to 'trade', in the sense that the science of trade, 'economics' would be specific to certain objects and situations, not universal and encompassing all.)

And the empirical evidence is that a lot of those restrictions are genuinely conducive to maximizing welfare.

Clemency for murder can be 'bought'; we call it a spoil of war, and history shows nothing unsustainable about that.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make - wars of conquest are generally welfare-destroying.

* well, not quite, since utilitarianism is a discovered principle (I don't claim it as an axiom), and so sufficient evidence could convince me of a different one.

[KrazyHorse]

Oncle Boris is, as usual, way out of his depth.

And WEREGILD