moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:25 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:57 pm

It's really puzzling as to why you even care. As a moral subjectivist up or down, it's all relative. Right?

nuclear weapons.png
No "IT'S" not all subjectivist in any sense. Wever the fuck "IT" is in this context.

Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!
Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

Really? What the fuck is on your mind?
:D :D :D
Is more or less more or less moral?
And if so WHY?
The above confirms your knowledge re morality is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, no wonder you like images with a very thick skull.
Do you even think I bother to read your moronic shit after starting with a comment like that??
:D
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Morality is self-interest, when it is extended to a group or society it is an extended concept of the self, as in self-interest. Society is a sanctuary of collective selves with mutual interests in the safety and nurturing of the self. Morality is relative between individuals and differing societies, according to their society's historical collective environment/culture.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:25 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:57 pm

It's really puzzling as to why you even care. As a moral subjectivist up or down, it's all relative. Right?

nuclear weapons.png
No "IT'S" not all subjectivist in any sense. Wever the fuck "IT" is in this context.

Tell me again how your diagram advances and argument towards moral objectivism!
Are you saying that we were more moral in 1944, than now and a bit more moral when nukes were at their height.?

Really? What the fuck is on your mind?
:D :D :D
Is more or less more or less moral?
And if so WHY?
The above confirms your knowledge re morality is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, no wonder you like images with a very thick skull.
As usual you will cry 'F/Off' every time you are cornered without any substance to counter.
I don't give a damn with your infantile crying, I'll response whenever there is an opportunity for me to refresh my knowledge on the relevant subject.

The first thing we need to define 'what is morality'.
Morality is the eliminating of 'evil' to enable its corresponding 'good'.
What is evil is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
What are evil [immoral] acts and thoughts are exhaustive with no ambiguities and exceptions.
One immoral element is dying prematurely and not naturally.
Therefore the trend of increasing life span is a moral progress.

Increasing the average life-span could lead to increase in population which is moral but if there is overpopulation, then it many be detrimental to the well being of humanity, thus in this case it would be immoral.
In this case, humanity must take the moral steps to ensure there is no over-population as a matter of moral principles. [in the future, not now].

Slavery is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and there is a trend of reduction [statistics] is Chattel Slavery to the extent that it is banned legally [politics] in all countries. Whilst it is political move, overall it due to the inherent moral impulse within all humans.
Thus there is moral progress [statistically] with Chattel Slavery.
There are other forms of slavery at present, but because there is an inherent moral function with all humans [active in different degrees] [statistics -normal curve], there is pressure from individuals and NGOs urging politicians to deal with this problem.
That there are pressure to deal with all forms of slavery as opposed in indifference as in the past is a sign of moral progress.

Generally, all humans are embedded in their DNA with a moral function as adapted from evolution.
As with evolution, the moral function within all humans are unfolding and being activated very slowly at present. This is why the majority of humans at present are more aligned with 'evil' tendencies than moral tendencies.

This is why there is a need to recognize this inherent moral functions as existing objectively so that humanity can understand its mechanisms more precisely and expedite its activity to facilitate a greater speed of moral progress on average [statistics].
Hurrah!!
Ptolemy and his ilk had earth, read: humans, as the center of the universe.
Copernicus showed us that the sun is the actual center of the solar system.
But you can't keep a good human down.
We are the measure of all things.
What's good for humans is good, period.
Nothing subjective about humans deciding that what is good for us is good for all.
And since the West is spearheading technological development
we can decide what leads to the most effective and non-evil (read: good for us) humans.

We are the center of the universe and goodness.
Our speciies is the good.

There is no Moon without our loving gaze.
There was no past before we arose and started looking at things (with our sudden eyes)
Objective good comes from what humans, well some humans want.

Viva la colonialization!
The Enlightenment is coming, for real this time.

Down with any primitive that disagrees. We are the objective species. Our needs are objective values.

We are the center of the universe!

Ptolemy is the Lazerus of science!!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's the method.

Moral egotist: 'What I say is morally right and wrong is, in fact, morally right and wrong.'
Response: 'That doesn't follow'.
Egotist: 'You and your poxy arguments. Fallacious arguments can have true conclusions. We're talking about facts. What - don't you think slavery is morally wrong? Don't you think increasing life expectancy is morally right? Some things just are good, and some things just are evil.'

QED.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
What I propose, especially for the morally tortured utilitarian, is a solution to this dilemma. Before doing so, let me make a few adjustments to the scenario. Forget the trolley, the bridge, and the fat man for now. This time you are not out for an afternoon stroll, but you are instead the Director of a large hospital. You have been made aware of a situation involving five patients, all of whom are suffering unique forms of fatal organ failure. There are no donors available...
Let's stop right there.

Why is the reality of organ failure a moral problem in the first place? After all, if we lived in a society where the healthy organs of those who died were automatically available to be used for others, we would probably have more organs then we'd know what to do with. Why should a citizen have to agree to donate his or her organs before they can be used to help others survive? What kind of a twisted, dysfunctional morality is that?

Forget being a "registered donor". The way it should work is that organs are always available for transplants unless someone specifically demands that his or hers not be.

Unless I am misunderstanding the way it all works now.
...but you also know a healthy patient was admitted that morning for a sprained ankle. The ankle has been bandaged, and they will soon release him. It occurs to you that if you were to harvest this patient’s organs, you could save the lives of the five. Would it be right to do so?
Same thing as above re the trolly. Wouldn't it depend on your own personal relationship to the man with the sprained ankle? Hate him enough and you might demand that his organs be harvested to save someone that you love. And if you can save four others, so much the better. As long as you are convinced the man with the sprained ankle doesn't deserve to live anyway.

Watch this film: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2367738

It deals specially with this sort of healthcare "trade off".

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
I could make this decision a little easier. I could alter this scenario [above] so the unsuspecting potential donor patient is elderly and on life support. All you’d have to do is pull the plug – similar to throwing the train switch. But I’ll instead go straight to the difficult dilemma. If you wish to save the lives of the five terminal patients, you must sacrifice a healthy patient.
Again, as long as this is just a "thought experiment" and the folks in the trolley or in the hospital are just abstractions, your own "solution" can be "thought up" as well. A hypothetical resolution to a hypothetical dilemma. And, sure, if everyone involved are just complete strangers to you, some "ethical theories" might appear more reasonable than others.

Here is the author's own:
You can stop worrying about it. I will make this decision for you. You should do what you can, everything medically possible, to save the five and the one (even though he only has a sprained ankle, so good for him). The same goes for the unfortunate fat man on the bridge. You may enlist him to try to help you warn the five doomed men; but you should not push him to his death.
So, as a theoretical ethicist, is this the most rational resolution for you too? To the extent that you yourself must bear the sole responsibility for another's death, back off? Even though at the trolly or in the hospital less will perish?

Again, abstractly, theoretically, the author weighs in...
Why? Let me answer this with another question. Could you live in a society in which your life could be arbitrarily sacrificed at any moment to save the lives of a thousand, or a hundred, or even two people? Of course not.
Probably not. But in a No God world does that make such sacrifices inherently, necessarily immoral? Look at nations that draft citizens into the military. Lives to be sacrificed based solely on the day that they were born.
As a social structure consisting of organisms that have survived for millions of generations, our morality has evolved with us. Some may argue that true altruism does not exist since (as their argument goes) all our actions have selfish motivations driving them. But either way, a society that would allow, or even condone, the sacrifice of one life for the many as an integral component of its value system would not survive for long.
Ever and always: we need as context.

And, in this context, where existentially do each of us as individuals fit into it? What happens to us specifically if one rather than another course of action is chosen?

To torture or not to torture, for example: https://netivist.org/debate/torture-pros-and-cons

Then this part:
Utilitarianism aside, unless you’re a sociopath you will feel the horror that accompanies the thought of pushing a man to his death.
Okay, but what if he is a sociopath? What philosophical argument can made by an ethicist in a No God world that would work to convince him not to do what he selfishly intends to do?

And back to the context in which, yes, you may feel horror when pushing the man, but you would feel an even greater horror at the consequences of not pushing him.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door
One More Time: Kant's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis
Helga Varden
Introduction

Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant's philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined. The problem is that Kant seems to say that it is always wrong to lie—even to a murderer asking for the whereabouts of his victim.
From my own frame of mind, this always brings me back around to God. It seems to me that one must believe in the existence of God -- of Judgment Day -- in order to justify telling the murderer the truth. Yes, being honest "down here" results in the death of the victim above. But ultimately justice will prevail because there's no getting around either God or Judgment Day. On the other hand, No God and, sure, you can think yourself into believing that you did the right thing -- philosophically? -- but tell that to the victim and his or her loved ones.

Nope, Kant's deontological assessment without God just doesn't make any sense "for all practical purposes".
If this is correct, then Kant's account seems not only to require us to respect the murderer more than the victim, but also that somehow we can be responsible for the consequences of another's wrongdoing.
Hypothetically, as it were.

But back to God. What or who we mere mortals choose either to respect or not to respect utterly pales next to how we imagine God's respect for our choices. With Heaven or Hell itself on the line for many of the faithful, almost any behavior can be justified.

Think Abraham:

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No,"
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want Abe, but
Next time you see me comin', you better run"
Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"


Then back down to Earth:
After World War II our spontaneous, negative reaction to this apparently absurd line of argument is made even starker by replacing the murderer at the door with a Nazi officer looking for Jews hidden in people's homes. Does Kant really mean to say that people hiding Jews in their homes should have told the truth to the Nazis, and that if they did lie, they became co-responsible for the heinous acts committed against those Jews who, like Anne Frank, were caught anyway?
There you go. The "real world" consequences of "to lie or not to lie?". And, in my view, a stark reminder of the profound limitations of philosophy itself in a No God world.

Then this part:
Because this is clearly what Kant argues, the critics continue, his discussion of lying to the murderer brings out the true, dark side not only of Kant's universalistic moral theory but also of Kant himself. We get the gloomy picture of a stubborn, old academic who refuses to see the inhumane consequences of his theory, and instead grotesquely defends the inhumane by turning it into an a priori, moral command.
All the more reason perhaps that, for some among us, they prefer to take things like this up into the technical clouds. Pinning down the philosophical parameters of ethical theory before taking the logic and the epistemologically sound conclusions to the gas chambers.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Moral relativism is first relative to the biological consciousness of the individual, but is further differentiated by the differing context/environment/cultures the biological consciousness is born into and lives within. Biology remains the same, only differing contexts define morality differently, and thus define the individual somewhat differently. A differing of mythologies.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door
One More Time: Kant's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis
Helga Varden
The Murderer at the Door

Kant's short essay “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy” (hereafter “Supposed Right to Lie”) is a response to a challenge raised by Benjamin Constant in 1797. Kant begins by quoting Constant's challenges to him. Constant argues:

The moral principle, “it is a duty to tell the truth” would, if taken unconditionally and singly, make any society impossible. We have proof of this in the very direct consequences drawn from this principle by a German philosopher [Kant], who goes so far as to maintain that it would be a crime to lie to a murderer who asked us whether a friend of ours whom he is pursuing has taken refuge in our house. . . . It is a duty to tell the truth. The concept of duty is inseparable from the concept of right. A duty is that on the part of one being which corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no duties. To tell the truth is therefore a duty, but only to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that harms others.
All I can do here is to note that to ponder all of this as a hypothetical "thought experiment" in an "ethical theory" forum is very, very different from actually being in a situation where the murderer is after your friend.

Just consider for example why the man wants to murder your friend. Is it for some slight or insult your friend leveled at him, or because your friend had just raped and killed the man's daughter or wife?

There are countless sets of variables here that can "change everything" form one or another considerably different frame of mind.

Rights and duties given what set of circumstances? Your rendition of them or another's?

Take conscription for example. Are a nation's citizens as patriots duty-bound to defend their country? And if it is deemed to be, is it right for the state to draft those into battle in conflicts with enemies who refuse to volunteer? After all, life and death can revolve around this as well.
Constant here argues against Kant that if it is always wrong to lie, then society is impossible, by which, I believe, Constant means that it would be practically impossible to protect oneself against violent aggressors.
Here, consider the context in which your friend has told you of the man after him, and you arm your friend. You place him in a hidden spot where your friend is able to easily kill the man after him first. Your honesty results in a death here as well. And you deceived the man after your friend because you knew it was just a trap. Is that immoral? Then you find out the man was after your friend because he had raped and killed his daughter or wife. Or both of them.

Here, imagine Kant's own God on Judgment Day.
In addition, Constant maintains, whether or not lying is wrong depends on the circumstances, that is, to whom we are lying. Murderers do not have a right to the truth and hence no one has the corresponding duty to tell them the truth. Constant therefore concludes—allegedly against Kant—that lying to murderers should not be considered a crime.
My point here is always the same: God or No God?

In a world where you believe in both God and Judgment Day, you are duty-bound to behave as you imagine God would judge you. After all, that revolves around the fate of your very soul itself for all the rest of eternity.

No God, however, and it all devolves down to individual prejudices derived existentially from individual lives. Duties and rights here are just subjective opinions derived from both indoctrination and personal experiences.

Kant without God? Then what?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door
One More Time: Kant's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis
Helga Varden
According to the traditional reading, we should view Kant's responses to Constant through the lenses provided by, for example, his account of the moral law in Groundwork. In this work, we learn that all moral actions must be based on a maxim that can be universalized and that we must do the right thing because it is the right thing to do—or from duty.
Morality up in the philosophical clouds in other words. And in a culture that revolves around "one for all and all for one" -- a socialist political economy for example -- all that has to be accomplished is to come up with the most rational and virtuous behaviors able to be "thought up" by the philosopher kings wholly in sync with "the people".

On the other hand, how exactly is Kant's moral philosophy to be squared with the "dog eat dog", "me, myself and I" capitalist political economy?

What if your duty is to out compete the other guys -- crush them -- so that you and only you come out on top? Cue Gordon Gekko and these guys: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... m#p2335794
When viewed this way the “Supposed Right to Lie,” including passages like the one quoted above, is seen as accomplishing two goals: it simply repeats how one ought never to lie as the maxim of lying cannot be universalized, and it cashes out the implications of this moral principle with regard to people's enforceable rights and duties against one another.
Now all we need is a context. Note one and then note in turn how your own moral maxims would play out "for all practical purposes". In what situations would you...

1] never lie
2] maybe lie
3] always lie

In particular those here who do not believe in the existence of God. A universal moral maxim in a No God world.

Then there are films like Liar, Liar where a character is suddenly unable to tell a lie. That's played for laughs, of course, but try to imagine your own life if out of the blue you could never lie.
Because lying is not a universalizable maxim, Kant is seen as saying, lying to the murderer is a crime. And of course, it is continued, this must mean not only that one cannot lie to a run of the mill murderer at the door, but also not to the worst of murderers, such as the Nazis. Lying to Nazis is therefore also a crime. There are no exceptions to the rule—the truth must be told.
Seriously, in the absence of religion, where the murderer and the Nazis are judged by God Himself, how could anyone take Kant seriously?

Does anyone here who does not believe in the existence of God take him seriously?

Thus...
To make things even worse, in the above passage Kant can be seen as arguing that if you lie despite the immorality of doing so, you are also legally responsible for the bad consequences of the lie. So, for example, if the Jew hiding in your house sneaks out while you are lying to the Nazi, and hence as the Nazi walks away from your house she actually captures the fleeing Jew, then you are partially responsible for what happens to the Jew even if it was not foreseeable. But this analysis is clearly absurd and morally repugnant. If this is all Kant has to say about the issue, the critics reasonably conclude, then the theory's irreconcilability with any test of reason is demonstrated.
Okay, but all the more reason to make sure you do include a "transcending font" -- God -- in defending the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Or that you keep the discussion away from folks like the Nazis and make it all just a theoretical assessment.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

“To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is . . . a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences.” Kant

"The Inquiring Murderer"
Richard McCarty
Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies
East Carolina University
Taking Kant’s principle of duty to what seems to be a logical conclusion, it should always be wrong to lie. No maxim for lying seems capable of passing the universalization test, since upon the maxim’s universalization the person to whom one would lie can always be expected know she is being lied to. This implication seems to be confirmed by Kant himself, in the quotation above. But does his principle of duty really lead to the conclusion that no lie is ever morally permissible—regardless of the consequences?
Again, ethically, any abstract, theoretical maxim might pass the universalization test if the exam revolves entirely around defining the meaning of the words used in the maxim itself. Whether the person being lied to suspects it or not. On the other hand, actual consequences pertain only to a particular context in which the truth or the lie does result existentially in things happening to ourselves and others. Things that might be construed as either a reward or a punishment, as a good thing or a bad thing.

Although, for those able to anchor all of this to God and Judgment Day, it always comes back to what God would command of you. In a sense here you are actually off the hook because you can always argue that you acted solely in accordance with God's will. Thus the consequences that unfold "down here" must be subsumed in the commandments of God.
Lying to the murderer at the door. The classic objection to Kant’s ethical theory as a whole is the case of the inquiring murderer. Knowing that someone is intent on killing your friend, you hide her upstairs; but then he knocks on your door and asks if she is in your house. Your maxim of lying, telling the murderer that your friend has left, seems contrary to the principle of duty; but your telling him the truth seems to make you complicit in your friend’s murder; if you say nothing at all, or if you say “I’d rather not answer that question,” these will be equivalent to telling the truth. That’s the trouble with an ethics like Kant’s that emphasizes exceptionless moral rules, it is said.
Here one can come back to William Barrett's "rival goods". That crushing dilemma such that no matter what you do in a particular context the consequences can produce some good and some bad. You tell the truth and the friend is doomed. You tell the truth and God rewards you in regard to what most counts...the salvation of your soul for all the rest of eternity. Besides, you can tell yourself, God will punish the murderer in regard to what most counts...sending his own soul to Hell for all of eternity. And your equally devout friend is now in Heaven herself with God.

Instead, what gets most grueling here is the realization that for most they have to take all of this on faith. They have no way to be absolutely certain there is a God, a Judgment Day and Divine Justice. And thus how, from individual to individual to individual, can this not become profoundly problematic?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Moral relativism is complex, involving geological location, climate, and the past history of a given country/local. The development of given mythologies through time, including those mythologies termed religions. Also, the historical animal/s of the given people's substance. The closeness or isolation of a given people/culture to others, and thus mixing of cultures and at times war and the threat of war.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:06 am Moral relativism is complex, involving geological location, climate, and the past history of a given country/local. The development of given mythologies through time, including those mythologies termed religions. Also, the historical animal/s of the given people's substance. The closeness or isolation of a given people/culture to others, and thus mixing of cultures and at times war and the threat of war.
That's a proper analysis from the point of view of anthropology. However we can aspire to better and, as long as one principle is in place, better morality may be achievable.

The "one principle" is universalism is better than tribalism.
.

And another is the living individual matters more than any culture of belief or any corporation.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:30 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:06 am Moral relativism is complex, involving geological location, climate, and the past history of a given country/local. The development of given mythologies through time, including those mythologies termed religions. Also, the historical animal/s of the given people's substance. The closeness or isolation of a given people/culture to others, and thus mixing of cultures and at times war and the threat of war.
That's a proper analysis from the point of view of anthropology. However we can aspire to better and, as long as one principle is in place, better morality may be achievable.

The "one principle" is universalism is better than tribalism.
.

And another is the living individual matters more than any culture of belief or any corporation.
I couldn't agree more, but perhaps utopian--sadly.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 11:17 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:30 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:06 am Moral relativism is complex, involving geological location, climate, and the past history of a given country/local. The development of given mythologies through time, including those mythologies termed religions. Also, the historical animal/s of the given people's substance. The closeness or isolation of a given people/culture to others, and thus mixing of cultures and at times war and the threat of war.
That's a proper analysis from the point of view of anthropology. However we can aspire to better and, as long as one principle is in place, better morality may be achievable.

The "one principle" is universalism is better than tribalism.
.


And another is the living individual matters more than any culture of belief or any corporation.
I couldn't agree more, but perhaps utopian--sadly.
Several posters have tried to explain matters to those here who are indoctrinated as to Free Will but have not succeeded. However I guess most here are elderly; one hopes the young have more flexible minds.
Post Reply