I once heard an anecdote that might describe some of what's happening. In the trenches of WWI, when it was time to fight, soldiers would have to climb up a ladder onto a battlefield. The problem was that German snipers could see the tops of the ladders. The Germans would keep their rifles fixed on where they knew the enemy would emerge and simply shoot them down once they saw helmets appear.
The European Allied soldiers were so disciplined that they just kept climbing up the ladders and getting killed one by one, following their orders to their deaths. The Americans saw this and said, "fuck that, I'm not climbing up there."
I think most Americans are pragmatic and they won't do something unless it makes sense. And to be honest, most people don't need to study math. Or at least it's not obvious that they do. I think most of the math professors I've talked to would agree. They view math, as it's taught in core curricula, more as an art than as having vocational value.
> In the trenches of WWI, when it was time to fight, soldiers would have to climb up a ladder onto a battlefield. The problem was that German snipers could see the tops of the ladders. The Germans would keep their rifles fixed on where they knew the enemy would emerge and simply shoot them down once they saw helmets appear.
> The European Allied soldiers were so disciplined that they just kept climbing up the ladders and getting killed one by one, following their orders to their deaths. The Americans saw this and said, "fuck that, I'm not climbing up there."
Wow, that anecdote explains American supremacy better than anything to date. /s
Without a citation I'm going to have to call bull-shit on that one, I'm just trying to imagine their CO standing there with an ever mounting heap of corpses at the bottom of the ladder and not once thinking 'this doesn't seem to work'.
Some googling does not turn up any evidence for your story either.
It's a stupid anecdote to point out the fact that differences in cultural attitudes can explain and somewhat justify test scores. I'm not even American, and I never claimed that the anecdote is true.
> It's a stupid anecdote to point out the fact that differences in cultural attitudes can explain and somewhat justify test scores.
It would if it were true.
> I'm not even American
That's immaterial.
> and I never claimed that the anecdote is true.
Well, you didn't claim that it wasn't true either, but the whole thing hinges on whether or not the anecdote is true so if you bring it up I'm going to assume that you at least believe it to be true and that the conclusion is supported by the anecdote.
If we're all just going to make stuff up to prove some point then it becomes very hard to reach conclusions.
I don't know about any americans, but isn't the Souain affair pretty much a CO ordering his soldiers to keep going despite an ever mounting heap of corpses?
Sure, but that's not structural and there are definitely parallels in the American civil war.
war is an exercise in stupidity to begin with, it shouldn't be surprising there are pockets of even worse. But to claim that structurally Americans refused to get out of the trenches in a certain way in order not to get killed whereas docile Europeans were led like lambs to the slaughter is not something I've found in any history of World War I (or II for that matter).
Both wars had extremely heavy casualties on both sides, and in both wars there were quite a few instances of CO's treating their men like disposables. The Christmas Truce is a beautiful story about such behavior. Even so, both sides were desperately trying to win the war and the rule would have been to not take action hastening the demise of the men on one's own side.
I've yet to come across any substantiation of the anecdote related above, if it was structurally true you'd think it would be more than a mere anecdote.
OTOH, the terrible truth is that it was necessary to order thousands of soldiers to their almost-certain deaths in order to win the war, and without a disciplined army this would not be possible. This says something about the value of discipline (in war or maths!) even when it's not obviously in your personal interest.
Is that true? I mean: is it true that the actions where it was necessary to "order thousands of soldiers to their almost-certain deaths" were significant causes of the final outcome?
WWI was the first 'industrialized' war, trench warfare implied the certain death of a huge number of men if the lines were ever to move, it's basically a never ending meat grinder until one of the parties runs out of warm bodies, supplies or ammo.
The final assault on the remains of the entrenched opposition were without exception extremely bloody and the side that would take the others trench never did so without significant losses.
In the U.S., the courts can't decide whether something is moral or immoral. If we throw people in jail for corruption, it won't be because they were found guilty of having a bad moral character. It will be because of an illegal conflict of interest or anticompetitive practices or something like that. That's what a separation of church and state means in this context.
The US court sure comes close to deciding moral issues, if not actually. Abortion: some people say killing babies is wrong and should be illegal; other people say a woman has the right to kill* her baby if it hasn't been born yet. Homosexual marriage: some people say it is wrong and should be illegal; others say it is right and should be legal. So if I think homosexual marriage is wrong, the court requires that the society I live in treat it as okay, which leaves many people feeling like the court is legislating morality. (Of course, the opposite is true, too) Furthermore, the court pretty much has to rule on things like this. So it's a pretty fine line.
* I freely admit to being biased on this issue, but the fetus has a heart-beat at 3 weeks; it's hard to say it's not living being. And if it's living, aborting/terminating it is technically killing it.
No, this isn't true. This isn't how the US courts work. The US courts decide what is consistent with the law. Let's look at the two issues you're discussing, abortion and gay marriage. These were both decided by Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, respectively.
In Roe, the court found that outlawing abortion would constitute a violation of rights already established in the Constitution, specifically the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This means that the same legal rationale for your right to abort is also the legal rationale that prevents a state from, say, passing a bill stating that "prewett is now a criminal because we say so."
In the case of Obergefell, the court decided that denying recognition for same-sex marriages from other states was a violation of equal protection, because opposite-sex marriages from other states were recognized. This is the same right that, say, allows you to marry someone of another race and then go to another state and have that marriage continue to be valid.
So no, the court is not deciding, morally, what is right and wrong. If you think that, that's probably the source of your confusion. The court is deciding that the implication of the constitution and laws as written demand this conclusion in order to be logically consistent.
You might disagree with the logical (or moral) basis of their decision. Sure.
I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that laws and morality are similar. That said, I do think they can be meaningfully distinguished. Edit: I understand you make this distinction as well.
The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. The creation of the law is the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that while people may agree or object to laws on moral grounds, the judicial branch is focussed on the application of the law itself, not the moral aspects of it. As the legislature creates the law, one could argue that they're more directly responsible for encoding morality into the law. Though some might think in some cases the judicial branch abuses it's interpretive duty by "legislating from the bench".
What do you think? Edit: I suspect we're actually quite close to agreeing.
I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality.
I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the expressed will of the people and says it's unconstitutional. So now these people, have to live in a society that legally tolerates something they think is wrong and/or harmful to society long-term. Regardless of your view of whether the Court was "right," you can certainly see why people would be upset with this. No matter what the Court rules, someone is going to be unhappy, but given that homosexuals are 3% of the population and are driving the other 97% (which had expressed their desires through the democratic process), you can see the problem.
(I think this is why conservative Christians are voting for Trump in large numbers, despite the fact that many of them think he is not a good candidate. They are voting for a Supreme Court nominator, not a government leader. As a conservative Christian myself, I think this is foolish, but there it is.)
But either way, the percentage of people who believe certain morals does not matter. No matter what our individual beliefs are, we bind ourselves to the law of the land. That's what it means to have a constitution. Even if 100% of Americans wanted to take away your freedom of speech or your freedom to bear arms, we could not do it legally.
The 3% is the percentage of people who are homosexual, not the people that support them, but I see your point.
In this discussion I'm not taking sides, just noting that the court needs to decide quasi-moral questions. Our interpretation of the Constitution depends on our current beliefs (and might even lead to an interpretation that the original founders would have rejected). The constitution clearly says that we have a right of free speech. However, as far as I am aware, it does not state that we have a) a right to marry, b) a right to do homosexual acts, or c) a right for homosexuals to marry. In fact, I believe B and C were illegal for large periods of time (anti-sodomy laws). I suggest that the Founders probably would not have seen homosexual marriage as a right. Due to changing morals, however, the Supreme Court now views it as a right. Were the laws constitutional before but not now? Were they always unconstitutional, but nobody challenged them? As a thought experiment, if societal morals changes to believe that homosexuality is actively harmful to society, would anti-sodomy laws be constitutional? The process of interpretation of rights necessarily involves our current beliefs.
Can it survive on its own outside the mother's body? Or implanted into another mothers body? If not how alive is it? But more importantly how can you enforce upon a woman the sacrifice to her body and self to carry this fetus to term? Does she not have autonomy and control of her own body?
I'm probably going to be downvoted to oblivion, but I would actually be more at ease in general if most people would defer critical judgments to a reliable and open-sourced AI. For example in terms of driving, my discomfort about how an AI would handle being Kobayashi Maru'd is far less significant than my discomfort about encountering a teenage driver.
You should go ahead and call your local police department. Chances are that they don't deal with cyber crimes unless you live in a large city (or if your city contracts with a larger police department).
There's also the issue of jurisdiction. If the crime is originating across some border (which more than likely it is), there's probably not much they're willing to do about it.
It's not strictly about security. Some people like to close their curtains at night not because they think it makes them safer, but because that level of exhibitionism seems weird to them. It's the same principle.
yeah but mainstream culture is always defined by a small group. and it is recognizably American. like having a million of those ribbons and plastic trophies from science fairs or organized sports. or republicans calling poor people "freeloaders".
The fact that if it fails to cause a fast death, it causes a big deal of suffering to the individual is not out of irony. But is still not a problem for it.
I think that's using too narrow a definition of pleasurable. Isn't the (pleasurable) time spent with your parents worth the trade-off of caring for them?
Hedonism isn't necessarily restricted to physical pleasure. There are emotional and intellectual pleasures as well.
You can move around the definition of pleasure, but then you end up with situations where pain as a means to pleasure is indistinguishable from pain as equal to pleasure, which undermines the whole premise of hedonism (that only pleasure has value).
How could you possibly end up in a situation where pain is equal to pleasure? I think pain would only be considered positive when it leads to greater pleasure.
Epicurus' philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive
from the sensations of what he defined as pleasure and pain: What is good
is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful. If pain is
chosen over pleasure in some cases it is only because it leads to a greater
pleasure. Epicurus explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often
leads to pain.
Although Epicurus has been commonly misunderstood to advocate the rampant
pursuit of pleasure, his teachings were more about striving for an absence
of pain and suffering, both physical and mental, and a state of satiation
and tranquility that was free of the fear of death and the retribution of
the gods.
Humans have a wide range of pleasures, of varying degrees of richness and sophistication. People sometimes object to hedonism on the grounds that it makes us no better than swine in the mud. But I think that reflects a poor opinion of humanity. Don't we get pleasure from symphonies, poetry, and great works of art?
Epicurus himself said he could be content with water, bread, weak wine and a "pot of cheese".
hedonism can look great when it's practiced by people who believe that the greatest pleasure comes from appreciating art. but it can look horrible for example in the case of suicide bombers, who i believe to be rational agents (i don't believe that they're mentally handicapped or on drugs or something). these are men who are completely convinced that they're doing the victims a great favor and that they will be rewarded with the highest pleasure imaginable. so in this case, the definition of pleasure has been moved so far that what is meant to be an expression of the highest pleasure imaginable is indistinguishable (to an outside observer) from pain.
maybe that's too extreme of an example, but it illustrates the point that the hedonist notion of good and bad is vastly ambiguous and can lead to undesirable situations, most notably in cases where people try to optimize for the afterlife, but also in varying degrees in other cases. so i think it ultimately it fails in practice as a moral philosophy.
I also think hedonism tends to stigmatize pain to an impractical degree. i think experiencing and accepting pain is an important part of life, not because it leads to greater pleasure, but because pain is a part of the human condition and there's value in observing it and recognizing its importance. in regards to art, there can't be catharsis without pain, so it doesn't make sense to me to say that pleasure is somehow better than pain in that sense. i think pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, whilst hedonists may shirk some responsibilities, perhaps their focus on pleasure also ends up improving their ability at finding pleasure in the situations they find themselves in. If you intend to find pleasure, you may find it easier to recognise the opportunities to create it when they arise.
So to go back to your example of looking after parents when they get old, perhaps a hedonist would be resistant if that involved acting as a servant, but may be good company for them by playing games, telling stories, etc... Not all acts of compassion require self-sacrifice.
Finding value in pleasure is different than saying that only pleasure has value. It seems to me that a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents, since only the games and the (pleasant) stories have value, and that they would do these things in more pleasant company instead.
Either way, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that accepting and knowing pain is an important part of the human experience.
Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker."
For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure.
"a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents"
Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look to make situations more fun (for themselves, but this tends to involve taking others along for the ride). Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people, I'd say it's more than possible and I'm not even a hedonist (i.e. someone who looks for fun in a high proportion of their time, someone who is good at doing so).
"Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth."
I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on.
> Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people
> "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
"Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth."
I'm mainly concerned with the second category, since the first is more of a question for psychology and neuroscience. Anyway, you're constructing a false ideal. Even if we use Google's poorly defined and colloquial version of hedonism, the more representative real world examples are cases of pain avoidance, overeating, risky behavior, gambling/shopping addiction, and so on."
In my experience, hedonists don't tend to be philosophers, they aren't concerned with providing academic claims about what motivates us, they're much more focused on pleasure in the here and now, rather than making claims that they're living life in the right way. If you want to study hedonism as a philosopher, be my guest, but it doesn't match what I've seen from the behaviour of hedonists.
Furthermore, they aren't 'pain avoidant' they are 'pleasure seeking', there's a big difference. Pleasure seeking people will chase pleasure even if there's a risk of pain along the way, pain avoidant people will avoid trying anything that may cause them pain.
> "What?"
I don't think what I said was unclear. The implication you made was that hedonists would avoid old relatives. In my experience, hedonists are 'omnivores' when it comes to pleasure, it doesn't matter whether it's playing cards with old people or going out clubbing smashed off their face, they go for everything with gusto. That's my experience of hedonists, they want to have fun and they want to bring you along for the ride.
"Climbing the ladder" has the connotation of stepping on other people in order to get ahead. Thinking about the analogy, if there are a bunch of people trying to climb the same ladder as you are, you have to pull people off or climb over them.
It's possible to create an incentive structure that discourages cannibalizing your coworkers.
I'm not sure, but when I was in the military, my SSgt told me not to burn bridges because I might end up in a situation where my life depends on that person helping me out. I thought that was an interesting incentive to cooperate. So maybe a reputation system can work, but I'm not good enough with people to know.
To be clear, I'm fine with rivalry and competition. I just think there's a sane and reasonable way to do it.
The European Allied soldiers were so disciplined that they just kept climbing up the ladders and getting killed one by one, following their orders to their deaths. The Americans saw this and said, "fuck that, I'm not climbing up there."
I think most Americans are pragmatic and they won't do something unless it makes sense. And to be honest, most people don't need to study math. Or at least it's not obvious that they do. I think most of the math professors I've talked to would agree. They view math, as it's taught in core curricula, more as an art than as having vocational value.