Philosophy Now Forum

The brain named itself.

Everyone can. Are we going to build a utopia in theory and then find ways to bring it into practice? I'm in. What's the agenda?

[quote="David Handeye" post_id=203636 time=1431897620 user_id=10750] You're welcome, Bill. Actually I have not understood why it should be an incorrect statement: even if we are consciousness, when we die we have not consciousness any more. As Hammock wrote in another thread I started, consciousness...

There are answers and they can be known.

[quote="Hobbes' Choice" post_id=204072 time=1432018554 user_id=9491] Gosh, I agree. Except that there is far more to Darwinism than that. What you are talking about is laisez-faire "survival of the fittest" capitalism. Darwin also talked about intra-group, and intra species co-operation, as well as ...

The defense counsel in a criminal case is very nearly an unlimited advocate. He may, and often should, try to bring the jury to believe the opposite of what he knows to be the truth. There are some limitations. He cannot ethically put in evidence he knows to be fraudulent or induce, encourage, or ab...

[quote=commonsense post_id=473842 time=1601496466 user_id=14610] [quote=Advocate post_id=473818 time=1601486140 user_id=15238] There's a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in all societies because ignorant people are easier to rule, for better or worse. There is an appropriate amount of informati...

>In a big, heterogeneous, federated nation-state, law is never going to be simple; the work of courts is never going to be easy. Then a big heterogeneous, federated nation-state is fundamentally unjust. Law must be simple to be relevant and legitimate; accessible to all. It must also be minimal to b...

Society must guarantee equality of sufficiency to everyone. After that, when there is a conflict of interests, it should always favor those who have the greatest need. If need is not at stake they can choose their own system of justice, let it be, duel, whatever, as long as it's legit consentual. I'...

This is in applied ethics because we've caused untold suffering by not having this shit worked out a long goddamned time ago. •never have to reload anything •never have to save anything •always be able to pick up exactly where you left off (external changes permitting) •always be able to undo the pr...

>Let's [i]pretend[/i] we're satisfied with the body of laws we have at present - the law is not on trial; there is no disagreement over whether some act is criminal, whether someone suspected of committing it should be brought to justice; whether a convicted criminal should be condemned to punishmen...

>The major difference would be: impartiality, desire to find the truth, and to do justice – instead of winning at any cost, regardless of guilt or innocence. Therein lies the first problem. Impartiality is assumed to be neutrality when nothing could be further from the case. <heh> The value of the d...

[quote=thedoc post_id=203249 time=1431720583 user_id=8079] A lot depends on who is charging who. If a really bad person charges a good person with a crime, the courts will restrict what the good person can present as evidence to demonstrate what a bad person they really are, in favor of the person m...

[quote=Starfall post_id=203201 time=1431706985 user_id=10865] The problem with justice is that it has no option but to be subjective. Justice is responsible for deciding what is acceptable and what is not, and the line between those two can be as unclear as the line between good and evil. Not only t...

[quote=Ned post_id=203178 time=1431701377 user_id=9566] I hate the adversarial “justice” system. It is not based on trying to find the truth, but it is based on WINNING, regardless of truth, regardless of guilt or innocence, regardless of harm done or not. It is based on lies, theatrics, emotional m...