Very interesting views. Still trolley problem is an abstract philosophical dilemma, which is meant to be unsolvable as part of sophism. Life in its essence cannot be an abstract situation, it always have context which is always interpreted according to a subjective system of belifes ❤ At that point the question of limiting priviledges for improving conditions of society is always a right thing to do, coz its always improves the lives of priviledged ones as well as part of society.
I mean, I don't even want _all_ privileges limited!! I just want less Rock Hill Farms going to climate-controlled storage so that more people can win a bottle in lottery, taste it, and say: " I spent $70 on this?"
Also side note that the end-not-means principle (and its older brother the doctrine of double effect) explain the intuition of why it's preferable to pull the lever but not preferable to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley. These are the only concepts for which I will trot out the trolley problem to illustrate.
I should say that I only even discuss the trolley problem here (and at such length) to head off the thought that _all_ moral dilemmas - including the one I want to talk about - basically take on that form. I find it has a way of trotting itself out, whether we want it to or not... 😅
There is a growing movement called “ Cost plus shipping” now prevalent in the social media underground where purists can trade; circumventing the secondary markets.
Yes! That's actually a very old tradition, going at least back to the old days of folks trading regional craft beers and stuff. One way is community trading between enthusiasts, while the other is rent-seeking pure and simple.
“Bringing up the trolley problem… sends the discussion off the rails”… I see what you did there 😂 Also as someone who (let’s just say for the sake of extreme simplicity of a RUclips comments section) would label their views as a consequentialist, I: 1) am so glad we share an abject contempt for the trolley problem, and 2) always appreciate when Kant’s views are presented in this way because it helps to show people how much closer so-called deontological and consequentialist views really are (or at least can be) and that in most cases the acrimony (or uselessness) of debate has more to do with people engaging in good or bad faith or with intellectual and moral humility or hubris. Even though (again for the sake of extreme simplicity) I will always turn my eye toward what are the immediate and eventual outcomes to build a moral appraisal of something (including not just the obvious outcomes but the collective meaning constructed around those outcomes and their subsequent ripple effects), and for that reason will in situations like this label myself more as a consequentialist, there is more than a healthy overlap with Kantian ethics, ‘Shmantian’ straw figures of deontology be damned…
Thanks for a great comment, and for watching and appreciating! It didn't make the cut of this (already too long) ramble, but there are of course a lot of folks - perhaps yourself included! - who absolutely address the concerns of folks like Anscombe (and myself). But then I'm always left with a question, because of course the term "consequentialism" was invented precisely to define a whole bunch of accounts which _failed_ to address such concerns. In Anscombe's sense, a consequentialist with hard rails (if you accept my phrasing) just isn't a consequentialist. I get that it keeps the ring of an orientation towards results, but it still feels to me like a term that's better left to the side in that case (the same as it just doesn't help much to talk about "deontology" once you've moved beyond Schmant). But how do you feel about bourbon flipping, though? 😁
@ I think that would be the hope of any thoughtful interrogation of those fields of thought, is that ultimately ‘deontology’ and now ‘consequentialism’ become dead terms left to the wayside (I mostly will use consequentialism because it has more recognition/intelligibility to some and because it indexes some fundamental orientation to weighing appraisals against their intermediary and eventual effects but in many cases that’s where I kind of leave off), but if those terms end up serving as foils or at least jumping off points for those conversations then maybe they retain some modicum of residual value? Obviously I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m also looking for better shorthand’s that approximate where I land on these things… speaking of dead things though, when it comes to bourbon flipping, I have to admit that if I won the ability to buy something like a PVW23 in a lottery I would probably sell it at auction and get several bottlings from ghost distilleries with the proceedings… read into my ethical frameworks however you will based on that 😂
Starve the secondary. There's plenty of great, cheap juice out there. Benchmark for example. Balcones Red Corn and Firestone & Robertson Straight Bourbon are two of mine...then of course there's all the very affordable rhum and brandy.
I'm all for that, and in fact that's very much the spirit of the channel! But in the medium term, that means you're still playing a kind of reverse whack-a-mole game against the investor class where anything that reaches a critical mass of hype gets snatched off the shelves. It just feels like we can do better.
No contest, nerdy agave from small producers and importers. Canada and its huge distilleries will still be around at the other side of this and you can get whiskey elsewhere, but there's nowhere else making weird cheesy raicilla and pickly clay-distilled mezcal.
Why would the flippers have a lower moral standing than the bourbon enjoyers? Someone will get the consumer surplus in one way or another, I don't see any need for the government to decide who.
I don't need to accuse flippers of immorality (although of course their business is illegal, avoids taxation, etc.), because it's not a question of punishing them. They will say that they're performing a service of selling to willing buyers at the actual market value and taking their cut from that, and if that's all and everything you care about then I suppose I don't have much of an argument. But the side effect of what they do is a drain of the normal market supply - facilitated, no doubt, by some on the inside - into a black market dominated by investors and the ultra-rich, one which isn't available to many ordinary customers. If the goal is, as DeMora says, to "give a fair chance" to regular Ohioans (and again, I can't force you to care about that), I can see two ways the black market gets deflated and the supply restored. One is if producers, distributors, and/or retailers _vastly_ bump the shelf prices of these products, sometimes by a factor of ten or more. That has the side effect of regular Ohioans still not having access to them, now because they can't afford them, but you could say it's more "fair" in some sense. The other way is to reduce demand on the black market more directly, which is what DeMora is going for (he's for poisoning the supply, I'm suggesting something targeting whiskey investment). And either way involves modestly stepping on the toes of the flippers and the investors - not because they have a lower moral standing but because of that "fair chance" goal.
I'd need to find a booze-related occasion, but sure! I'm not sure how much more I have to say in substantive fashion on these particular topics, but booze and materialism and Hobbes (and Hobbes' take on Tertullian), that could be fun...
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Let's go! We always appreciate a Kant video !
Kant stop won't stop. 😁
Very interesting views. Still trolley problem is an abstract philosophical dilemma, which is meant to be unsolvable as part of sophism. Life in its essence cannot be an abstract situation, it always have context which is always interpreted according to a subjective system of belifes ❤
At that point the question of limiting priviledges for improving conditions of society is always a right thing to do, coz its always improves the lives of priviledged ones as well as part of society.
I mean, I don't even want _all_ privileges limited!! I just want less Rock Hill Farms going to climate-controlled storage so that more people can win a bottle in lottery, taste it, and say: " I spent $70 on this?"
Also side note that the end-not-means principle (and its older brother the doctrine of double effect) explain the intuition of why it's preferable to pull the lever but not preferable to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley. These are the only concepts for which I will trot out the trolley problem to illustrate.
I should say that I only even discuss the trolley problem here (and at such length) to head off the thought that _all_ moral dilemmas - including the one I want to talk about - basically take on that form. I find it has a way of trotting itself out, whether we want it to or not... 😅
Spot on.
Thanks! Wait, on everything?? 😂
There is a growing movement called “ Cost plus shipping” now prevalent in the social media underground where purists can trade; circumventing the secondary markets.
Yes! That's actually a very old tradition, going at least back to the old days of folks trading regional craft beers and stuff. One way is community trading between enthusiasts, while the other is rent-seeking pure and simple.
“Bringing up the trolley problem… sends the discussion off the rails”… I see what you did there 😂 Also as someone who (let’s just say for the sake of extreme simplicity of a RUclips comments section) would label their views as a consequentialist, I: 1) am so glad we share an abject contempt for the trolley problem, and 2) always appreciate when Kant’s views are presented in this way because it helps to show people how much closer so-called deontological and consequentialist views really are (or at least can be) and that in most cases the acrimony (or uselessness) of debate has more to do with people engaging in good or bad faith or with intellectual and moral humility or hubris. Even though (again for the sake of extreme simplicity) I will always turn my eye toward what are the immediate and eventual outcomes to build a moral appraisal of something (including not just the obvious outcomes but the collective meaning constructed around those outcomes and their subsequent ripple effects), and for that reason will in situations like this label myself more as a consequentialist, there is more than a healthy overlap with Kantian ethics, ‘Shmantian’ straw figures of deontology be damned…
Thanks for a great comment, and for watching and appreciating! It didn't make the cut of this (already too long) ramble, but there are of course a lot of folks - perhaps yourself included! - who absolutely address the concerns of folks like Anscombe (and myself). But then I'm always left with a question, because of course the term "consequentialism" was invented precisely to define a whole bunch of accounts which _failed_ to address such concerns. In Anscombe's sense, a consequentialist with hard rails (if you accept my phrasing) just isn't a consequentialist. I get that it keeps the ring of an orientation towards results, but it still feels to me like a term that's better left to the side in that case (the same as it just doesn't help much to talk about "deontology" once you've moved beyond Schmant). But how do you feel about bourbon flipping, though? 😁
@ I think that would be the hope of any thoughtful interrogation of those fields of thought, is that ultimately ‘deontology’ and now ‘consequentialism’ become dead terms left to the wayside (I mostly will use consequentialism because it has more recognition/intelligibility to some and because it indexes some fundamental orientation to weighing appraisals against their intermediary and eventual effects but in many cases that’s where I kind of leave off), but if those terms end up serving as foils or at least jumping off points for those conversations then maybe they retain some modicum of residual value? Obviously I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m also looking for better shorthand’s that approximate where I land on these things… speaking of dead things though, when it comes to bourbon flipping, I have to admit that if I won the ability to buy something like a PVW23 in a lottery I would probably sell it at auction and get several bottlings from ghost distilleries with the proceedings… read into my ethical frameworks however you will based on that 😂
Bro I ain't gonna judge. 😅
Starve the secondary. There's plenty of great, cheap juice out there. Benchmark for example. Balcones Red Corn and Firestone & Robertson Straight Bourbon are two of mine...then of course there's all the very affordable rhum and brandy.
I'm all for that, and in fact that's very much the spirit of the channel! But in the medium term, that means you're still playing a kind of reverse whack-a-mole game against the investor class where anything that reaches a critical mass of hype gets snatched off the shelves. It just feels like we can do better.
@differentspirits4157 Part of my Midwest GenX self wants to keep the goods under wraps. Not everyone is worthy. Remember when going big was so lame?
Which Mexican and Canadian spirits should I stock up on ahead of the 25% tariffs?
No contest, nerdy agave from small producers and importers. Canada and its huge distilleries will still be around at the other side of this and you can get whiskey elsewhere, but there's nowhere else making weird cheesy raicilla and pickly clay-distilled mezcal.
Why would the flippers have a lower moral standing than the bourbon enjoyers? Someone will get the consumer surplus in one way or another, I don't see any need for the government to decide who.
I don't need to accuse flippers of immorality (although of course their business is illegal, avoids taxation, etc.), because it's not a question of punishing them. They will say that they're performing a service of selling to willing buyers at the actual market value and taking their cut from that, and if that's all and everything you care about then I suppose I don't have much of an argument. But the side effect of what they do is a drain of the normal market supply - facilitated, no doubt, by some on the inside - into a black market dominated by investors and the ultra-rich, one which isn't available to many ordinary customers.
If the goal is, as DeMora says, to "give a fair chance" to regular Ohioans (and again, I can't force you to care about that), I can see two ways the black market gets deflated and the supply restored. One is if producers, distributors, and/or retailers _vastly_ bump the shelf prices of these products, sometimes by a factor of ten or more. That has the side effect of regular Ohioans still not having access to them, now because they can't afford them, but you could say it's more "fair" in some sense. The other way is to reduce demand on the black market more directly, which is what DeMora is going for (he's for poisoning the supply, I'm suggesting something targeting whiskey investment). And either way involves modestly stepping on the toes of the flippers and the investors - not because they have a lower moral standing but because of that "fair chance" goal.
@differentspirits4157 I would say a first come first serve or an auction approach is more "fair"in a way.
Let's do poli-phi next:
How to minimize the state of war/emergency: Hobbes
How much should we inconvenience the privileged?: Rawls vs Nozick
I'd need to find a booze-related occasion, but sure! I'm not sure how much more I have to say in substantive fashion on these particular topics, but booze and materialism and Hobbes (and Hobbes' take on Tertullian), that could be fun...