There is a great deal of truth to this. Everything that we make requires energy: creating the resources (like steel, plastic and rubber), transporting those resources to the plants to make the parts, running the factories to assemble the parts, and transporting the completed vehicles.

Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil). Not only does creating new cars use more energy than running the old ones but it causes more pollution. And while a great deal of the old cars will be recycled as scrap that scrap will be sold over seas. One of America's largest export is scrap metal.

Additionally it is aiding one industry at the expense of others: used parts, auto repair (body and mechanical) as well as the used car industry will suffer.

But, when you consider the volume of cars affected by the program I am not sure how much of an impact there will be.

All ethics are personal choices. But as paradoxical as that sounds that doesn't necessarily make them subjective because there should be some type of objective criterion used to determine right and wrong.

For example, everything I do is to satisfy my own desires. Even when doing unpleasant things it is to achieve a desired goal. Whether you are a corporate elite who only desires a large bank account, a monk who lives a life of sacrifice or an addict injecting heroin, all your actions are based on your personal desires.

But there are questions that each of us must answer:
What do I want?
Why do I want it? (This question includes SHOULD I want it)
How SHOULD I get it?

If there is a disconnect between these questions then you will fail, your desires will be frustrated, you will unsuccessfully attempt to reconcile the contradictions of your life or you will stop trying.

I agree that what do I want is entirely personal choice, however, the thought process (logic) of moving from one question to the next is objective.

To go one step further... The desire comes before the ethic. If my answer to the first question is heroin and then I realize from the second question that I should not desire that then I have the ability to suppress my desire. Generally (I only say generally because I am not sure it holds in every case but I think it does), you will only have to suppress a desire when it is in conflict with more primary desires.

Example: I am married but I desire to sleep with my secretary. I suppress my desire because I value my marriage more and to entertain my desire would destroy my marriage.

So if this is correct we may be able to find one (or more than one) primary desires that all humans have. If that is possible then that would be the foundation for morality that all humans share.

As I said before (who knows how many pages back) I think the common desire is life. Life must be the primary desire otherwise you die -- in other words you can only live by taking actions. Those who choose to live must then answer the rest of the questions. Those who choose not to live (e.g., suicides) are dead and outside the realm of ethics since they can perform no actions.

*** As I re-read what I wrote I am not happy with how I wrote it but I cannot put my finger on what I am unhappy with.***

I am not really following you.



This sounds like you are referring to prison if I commit a crime. My freedom doesn't mean that I can do whatever I please. There are rules in place that are required to ensure liberty for all. By breaking these rules you are declaring that you are unwilling to participate in the social contract... placing you outside the society.

This is not the same thing as stating that the welfare of society supersedes the freedom of the individual. If I received a notice in the mail tomorrow stating that the United States will require more doctors in the next 20 years and I am to report to medical school on the first of the month, I would throw it away.

I choose not to be a doctor regardless of the needs of society.

I don't think I can roll with that.

Would you feel better if the commercial was as follows...

“Ever fill like something is missing in your life, that there is a void you’ve been unable to fill?” That was pretty much the blurb, the commercial ad. And I waited, expecting something like “Brought To You By The Church of the Latter Days Saints,” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses” or even “The New Upbeat Ministry of the Pierced and Tattooed.” Something like that. But not this time.

“Please visit,” the abbreviated pitch closed, "www.VIAGARA.org".

True.... the copy takes on a whole new meaning, but that is what commercials do. They offer a product to an audience who might want it. And honestly, I think Christians have done a wonderful job of turning Christ into a product.

In New York it is required that children be immunized before they will be allowed to attend school. If you enter the system and have not been immunized, you will be barred from school until you comply.

I am in agreement with you on the nature of liberty. Honestly, one of the better discussions I read on freedom was in Starship Troopers but it was omitted from the movie.

The crux of the discussion was what should an individual be able to do under the guise of freedom?

Can I build a nuclear bomb in my basement? If you are worried about my harming those who live around me, don't -- I have never had one go off yet nor had any toxic leaks. Still, I think you can see that the potential danger is staggering.

The central idea was that freedom does not mean that you can do whatever you wish. License is doing what you wish while avoiding the negative consequences of your actions (Plato talked about that a bit). Freedom focuses on responsibility. Do whatever you believe to be right; but whatever you do, you are responsible for. Good or bad.

You should be free to decide what medical procedures you (and your children) undergo, however you must accept responsibility for your actions. If your child gets sick and dies, you are responsible. If your child infects others, you must redress the situation.

I would imagine that if you did not inoculate your child and other children died from it it would be similar to other cases where death resulted from lack of prudent actions (neglect or disregard). Such as a parent throwing a party for their child's graduation where alcohol is served to minors. Even though it may not have been the parent's intent they are responsible. If a minor dies from alcohol poisoning, the parent will go to prison.

I would hope that most people would try to avoid the Utilitarian approach -- You are morally obligated to first do the action which leads to the most good for the most people and secondly to do the action which causes the least harm to the most people.

Yeah Bro, I live about 15 minutes from you. Winters are waaaaaay long

*ducks so as to avoid the dripping sarcasm*

Call his wife and invite her along. She might know some nice single guys as well.

LMAO!

Robo Chicken kicks

Used to stay up specifically for Space Ghost and Sea Lab

Yeah, I was thinking about that movie as well. But it plays out in other things too. That is one of the principles of gun control.

Premise: some people are violent and cannot be trusted.
Premise: Guns magnify the amount of violence one person can inflict.
Conclusion: By banning guns we can minimize the damage some people will inflict on innocent members of society.

Another problem with this would be that a propensity for violent behavior due to specific genetic traits are not exclusive. Meaning that just because someone does NOT have a genetic propensity does not mean that they will not become violent.

I think we should be very careful to bear in mind the difference between propensity and actuality.

Just as in other parts of this thread, simply because someone can do something doesn't mean that they will do that thing. I may have a family history of cancer or a very high probability of diabetes, but it doesn't mean I will get them.

It is even more difficult when dealing with behaviors that are volitional. Perhaps there are genes that increase the aggression of individuals (through increased testosterone or whatever) but increased aggression wouldn't be a crime. In fact, there are certain aspects of society where these people would flourish.

Since I believe traits to be ethically neutral (and behavior is what is right or wrong) manipulating genes to alter traits would be bad. It would be like arresting someone for a crime because they fit a profile and before a crime has even been committed.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that we have an affinity for sweets because in nature sweet taste indicates sugars (such as in fruits and berries) that were packed with energy.

Also, a bitter taste was generally associated with things that we should not eat. However, as an avowed coffee drinker I take issue with that observation.

yeeeaaaaahhhhhhh......

I new there would be no point but I did it anyway. The demographics of where I am meant that my vote would have no effect on the outcome.


It felt nice to vote for who I thought was the best candidate instead of the lesser of two evils.

Ah, gotcha.

I don't know if a desire can be a genetic trait so I will leave that to those who are more knowledgeable. But I do know my grandfather loved a good steak, my father loved a good steak, and I love a good steak.

But it is not an evolutionary trait. It is a technique. A technique is simply a way of doing something. Techniques that are valuable continue to be practiced. Techniques that are not are abandoned.

For example, before the written word it was incredibly difficult to transfer knowledge from one generation to another. If someone had a valuable piece of knowledge they had to verbally transmit it to someone who had to retain it and then transmit it in turn. A single accident or untimely death could wipe out a great deal of knowledge that would have to be re-discovered. Writing protects that knowledge.

Yet, there is no writing gene. Children must still be taught to speak, read and write. To believe that jobs/skills can be passed down from generation to generation is a bit of a throw-back idea. The children of kings shall be kings and the children of farmers will be farmers.

Sorry, I thought it was funny because chances are the kids were either out of school or at the speech.

But for some reason, so long as the word "children" are invoked all sorts of laws can be passed.

meh

I voted for Nader