Kant buying hash

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Kant buying hash

Explore past honorees in the Scrogues Gallery…. One of the great debates in the field of ethics centers around the thinking of Emmanuel Kant vs. Mill, on the other hand, argued that we should do what produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people , and that the ends justified the means. Last night I had a thought that may change all this. It occurred to me that both Chaos and Complexity Theories may have implications for the centuries-old debate between the ethics of duty and the ethics of utility. Utilitarian ethics make a lot of assumptions about the knowability of an outcome. That is, it presupposes that I can know what result is desirable and am therefore better able to work toward it. It assumes the ability to predict and dictate the ends. Sensitivity to initial conditions, however, dismisses the possibility that I can reliably predict the results of my actions. Even in highly controlled mathematical contexts, where inputs can be controlled to as many decimal places as you have computing power to manage, a. All of which points to the futility of a utilitarian approach. It also occurs to me that Complexity Theory has something to say on the subject, too , and that the implications are consistent with Kant. Artificial Life researchers have conclusively demonstrated, in their attempts to model living systems, that rule-heavy, top-down systems that attempt to define too many pieces of the system are destined to fail. In the end, truly dynamic lifelike activity is too complex to micromanage. What does work are systems where the activity of individual agents are guided by two or three simple rules. In I made a computer model of coordinated animal motion such as bird flocks and fish schools. It was based on three dimensional computational geometry of the sort normally used in computer animation or computer aided design. I called the generic simulated flocking creatures boids. The basic flocking model consists of three simple steering behaviors which describe how an individual boid maneuvers based on the positions and velocities its nearby flockmates…. Instead, each individual boid was programmed to follow three basic rules. So how does this bear on our ethics question? Well, it seems that a utilitarian model, by assuming the knowability of outcomes and focusing on strategies to force the ends, are very much over-determined, like the top-down A-Life models that consistently fail to generate lifelike behavior. Those models decide at the outset what the result will look like and set out to try and sheepdog all the agents of action toward a predetermined conclusion. The Kantian model, on the other hand, makes no assumptions about outcomes at all. It merely acts in accordance with basic moral rules that are structurally similar to the operational rules of a working A-Life system. For me, at least, my epiphany about the implications of Chaos and Complexity pose challenges to the code I have lived by for my entire adult life. Even more critically, it means I need to focus more attention on my own core first principles. If I can make no assumptions about the outcomes of my actions, then it seems all I have left is the moral value of the actions in and of themselves. Mitchell Waldrop. NOTE: I am unaware of any research that broaches the questions raised here. I have not had time to conduct a formal search, however, and if others have addressed the relationship between Kant, Mill, Chaos and Complexity I would appreciate being pointed toward that research. In essence, it seems to me that you have described all the religions that suggest leaving worldly matter alone, including the religion Yeshuah of Nazareth thought he was teaching. Instead, someone far more capable than Hitler harnesses those forces, and has the foresight not to exile the Jewish theoretical physicists, creating the first atomic bomb. Having said that, we must still make some choices to which most outcomes are quite clear. There are too many people to support in a single lifeboat. Do they all drown, or are some of those people sent off to drown so the others can live? Now, one can postulate that it might be best for them all to die because one of those that lives might become the grandfather of the guy who finally pushes the nuclear button and destroys the world. But that person might also be the grandfather of another Newton, Einstein, of Gautama. Good examples, JS, and yeah, this is far from prescriptive. My wife just asked me if this meant a major change in how I approach life. The answer: well, maybe. My observation has been that people who are forced for any length of time to exist in abnormally chaotic conditions war, abuse, etc. I went the second way, as opposed to your path, and it seems to me to be a supremely courageous act to reexamine either way of living with the aim of self-awareness and a more complex chaotic; an excellent, excellent connection there but ultimately more realistic and useful view of our place in the world. Last night I heard a marvelous thought on what makes someone a liberal: they recognize that the truth is complicated. If we could all just start there… maybe there would be more thinking and less screaming. I wish I believed that definition, Joy. Do I believe that there are more conservatives who see things way too simplistically? I guess I do. But there are plenty of liberals who are the same way, in my experience. Hey Sam, off the top, you are on to something. Doug is right, of course — in my attempts to simplify I over-simplified — and he has my thanks for correcting the error. This is the first time I remember hearing it from the perspective of knowledge, though. The biggest problem I have with Utilitarianism lies with unintended consequences and the fact that the targeted end is achieved so infrequently. By the time it is realized — if it is ever realized — that the end was missed the path is often lost and the end missed permanently. Of course, any attempt to lay down concrete rules and set things in black and white is doomed to failure. When making moral choices, moral value changes from person to person, and can result in many choices of action leading to various ends. Is that the synthesis of choosing your desired end while acting morally? However, you did neglect something that also bears discussion, namely the idea that both chaos theory and complexity function at the edges of functionality. Complexity especially lies within the dividing line between unpredictable, chaotic behavior and predictable, mechanistic behavior. An unity-gain buffer will give me the same output voltage as the voltage I input into the buffer, but with some predictable biases and some statistically-estimated noise. This intersects this philosophical discussion when you realize that, just because all exact outcomes cannot be predicted, many, many, many outcomes, and especially the general outcome, can be predicted nonetheless. Nice, but Kant and Mill are both in a framework of thought that precedes the recognition of the importance of language in structuring out thoughts. Subsequent philosophers in the nineteenth and twentieth century made their modes of observation seem rather quaint and exposed even more of their simplistic assumptions than those that you have outlined here. Although this is a nice observation. But as elegant as your observation is and as well worded as you put it, I feel compelled by some of the other comments here to to suggest that any serious modern philosopher must be comfortable with the notion that there is no basis for meaning and that the search for meaning is a naive endeavor. It simply does not matter that there is no basis for meaning and being a philosopher means being comfortable with that much like learning to swim means no longer needing to stand in the water. That is when you have learned to swim. This is not to say, by any means, that Mill and Kant are irrelevant. Rather, it means that battling them as if they were super heroes with clashing super powers is no longer the the focus of philosophical investigation. Does anyone learn to swim without first standing in the water? Almost as slippery as meaning. I feel compelled by some of the other comments here to to suggest that any serious modern philosopher must be comfortable with the notion that there is no basis for meaning and that the search for meaning is a naive endeavor. I can quit thinking now and just put a bullet through my brain. Hey, stop laughing, you guys. I really teach ethics. With the dean, even. Now —while I personally subscribe to this, I do so by choice, as an Existentialist. Bronowski is no more verifiable than is Mill or Bentham, no moe so than Kant. Even this position is logically flawed. I can barely read this type; hence. You comment is both technically accurate and largely beside the point. As for language and meaning, yes, we know this. It is, instead, a shared dogma resulting from particular cultural and institutional dynamics. Note this thread , for instance, and in particular comment 9. I responded because it is rare to find a literate discussion of philosophy on the web. I had not intended a critique but, rather, a perspective on the conundrum. Indeed, they are, though I am less temperamentally inclined to Kant. That has never been more relevant. Propaganda and advertising may operate on two levels. Language is how we think. When political forces debase language, they change thought itself. Bronowski will always be a hero for having given it his best shot. But the fault was not with Bronowski —but Ayer! Without this piece de resistance , we are still adrift and vulnerable. Thanks for the literate and intelligent article and blog. Why have philosophy at all? For that matter, why think at all? What about Descartes? If our senses are suspect, then absolutely nothing we perceive to exist may exist. In which case, there can be no reputable data acquired by our senses, which means there is no grist for the intellectual mill. Really, why bother? If the ultimate conclusion is that there is no meaning and can be no meaning, why have philosophy at all? That said, I tend towards utilitarianism, but I also convinced that in the vast majority of cases there is no contradiction between the right thing morally and the right thing practically, if your goal is the betterment of your fellow humans. People want to make this complicated, as if there is some opposition between the pragmatic thing; the right action morally and the right end morally. Hi, Ian. Ideally the principles and ends are in harmony, I agree, and it may be true that this is usually the case. This is where my issue with knowability comes into play. Brian 10 : I know less about Heisenberg, but it seems like it would apply here. Well…, I really liked the post, and will re-read it at least once again before I am through with it. Now if only we could properly assess what it means to be good, less good, not good and bad…. Email Address:. Like Loading Pingback: www. Excellent, Sam! In other words, at some point, practicality wins out. Great stuff. A frightfully interesting post. Great post! Bravo, my nerdy friend. Oldpissant: The Philosophy of Language, is this your area of expertise? What can I say, E. Dr Slammy, 2 great posts in one week…. For chrissakes, Sam. Cut it out. Alas, Socrates was right. We know nothing! OP 12 : You comment is both technically accurate and largely beside the point. Len: Why have philosophy at all? Pingback: Let the economy die?! Search for You make the call. Worst marriage ever: Bloom v. Behind the warped wall: Katsumi Yamada can't let Sasuke go. Follow Blog via Email Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address: Follow Join 9, other subscribers. Reblog Subscribe Subscribed. Sign me up. Already have a WordPress. Log in now. Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website.

Kant’s Moral Maxim of Universality Applied to Buying Drugs

Kant buying hash

There were many fascinating comments to my previous post on drugs , and are evidence for why Cal Newport has called readers of this blog 'freakishly smart. Lindsey of Crooked Lines left this comment :. Many of the drugs at the University of Michigan, where I went to school, for example — especially the ever popular marijuana — made their way there from Detroit, and while the affluent drug users in Ann Arbor are, for the most part, safely insulated from the effects of the trade, the people who live in and around the earlier links of the supply chain whether or not they are part of the trade itself are not so privileged…. Lindsey is elevating the societal impact of her behavior — the funding of narco-violence — above personal preferences in deciding not to buy drugs on ethical grounds. The tricky part is that there is essentially zero societal impact of a single person buying or not buying a drug. Economists argue that it's irrational to vote in an election because it's essentially impossible that your vote will affect the outcome. As the old joke goes, if an economist sees another economist at the voting booth, they say, 'I won't tell if you won't tell. Why yes, but everybody does not think this way. What are the ethics surrounding decisions that, if universalized, would make a big difference, but which, at the margin, make essentially zero difference? In Kant's Categorical Imperative he includes this moral maxim of universality: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction. The implications of Kant to non-voters would be, 'If everyone chose not to vote, the democracy wouldn't function. So vote! That seems like a fine aspirational ethic — a principled stance applied to things like democracy and drug buying — but the more realistic approach would to weigh the probability of universal adoption of the action. If it's insanely low — like in the case of non-voting or drug-buying — then ignore it. If, on the other hand, there were only five total drug buyers in the world, and if you stopped buying drugs that would drastically shrink demand and perhaps result in less drug violence, you would be right to incorporate societal implications more seriously in your decision as they much greater. Bottom Line : In the case of buying drugs, since the personal impact positive and negative so vastly outweighs the societal impact, I believe solely a personal consideration of costs and benefits is an ethical way to think about it. But ethics is simply a basis for making individual decisions, and to each his own. Just one of many, right? Voting is irrational because it is a winner take all event. However, buying drugs and other aggregated activities is not like voting. Even though this bit is tiny, it is somewhat proportional to your tiny demand. Voting is like a step function — its derivative is 0 so marginal behavior is irrelevant. But for all other aggregate functions of human behavior no matter the curve , they will have nonzero derivatives. Moral of story: voting is an exceptional case because the effects of the margins truly are 0. But for many other things in life, the effects of the margins are not 0. Though not sure I understand your first point — I don't think most people think about 'supporting the artists' — maybe. The issue is more complicated because if drug-use reached majority levels it would surely be turned into a legal substance via the mechanism of democracy or at least, that is what one could expect. I dont actually know how it is elsewhere, but in Chile a great deal of college students simply grow their own. I actually heard it as an argument towards stripping the violent-drug-culture impact that consuming marihuana creates as an illegal drug. Instead of buying it from a seedy violent drug subculture, exposing yourself to crime, violence and police enforcement, you grow a couple of plants and sell it at a very low cost to only your weed-friendly acquaintances. Im pretty sure most would quickly forget their pledge for responsible drug use, but in essence the whole thing doesnt seem like a terrible idea. Particularly since it seems kant-ish. Would I do this if everyone did it? Send the whole rotten pack of drug dealers to hell. And it only applies to drugs you can grow easily in your backyard Chile being a very good place for it — there used to be hemp plantations by the dozen. Her opinions are far, far from the everyday reality of hundreds of thousands of pot smokers who get their weed through small distribution channels of growers and their friends with extended networks. Lindsey is profoundly disconnected from the reality of buying weed, so how would she know anything about it? This may apply to drug crops like opium poppies and coca only because they are illegal , but where is the data to support her sweeping assumption otherwise known as bullshit concerning marijuana? Just as the violence and corruption engendered by the prohibition of alcohol was promptly eliminated by its repeal, so should we demand the repeal of the unjust and socially destructive prohibition of marijuana and all other illegal psychoactive substances. If drugs were legalized, these problems would go away, just like Kennedy and Capone went away when prohibition ceased or at least found some other activity other people had problems dealing with on their own. You think Americans would rather buy heroin grown in Kansas or Canada, or freaking Kabul? In fact, restricting the freedom of individuals to access substances seems to violate most of the more fundamental Kantian principals. Many drugs are a social thing, and especially smokers like to encourage their friends to join them. This means that often each smoker spreads it to their friends, and maybe a few of their friends spread it to their friends. The individual impact for drug use can reach farther than voting which is a more personal affair other than debating politics with politically interested people. Wow, Ben, thanks—both for starting a really interesting discussion about this, and for the link to my embarrassingly crude and underdeveloped blog! I wanted to clarify my comment a bit, and then hopefully add something to the discussion. Vince, I truly apologize if anything I wrote sounded self-righteous—that was not my intention at all. I have had the opportunity and been in countless social situations where everyone around me was doing drugs, and I had to make the same decision that Ben is now making—and in a lot of those cases and no, this was not middle school it was the expected social norm. And Ted, thank you so much for your useful analysis—the fact that drug usage is not a step function so much more eloquently describes why I made the choice I made…because my choice does have an impact. I think the points about local growers are really good ones, and as T points out, it seems that in some instances there may be a socially-responsible way to procure drugs. If you can find a way to do this, Ben, perhaps my point is then not relevant to your decision. Unfortunately that is enough money on corrupt hands to fund a constant bloody war through Mexico. Not to mention the destabilizing effects of Narco money going into corrupt government officials and the Narco assassinating those that go against them. Not to mention the Cartels have been moving up into the U. I think that makes it a pretty strong case for the serious global cost to black market drug use. Definitely suggests the importance for either legalization or buying from American growers to weaken the Mexican Cartels. Lindsey, thanks for your reply. Ben, fascinating discussions in the last few posts. Indeed, you raised this question many months ago, and I have had it in my 'draft posts' folder ever since. Would love to hear your theories at some point. As Scott notes, if we follow the principle of universality and will that all of mankind purchases drugs, then drug illegality ends or becomes unenforceable and societal harm plummets. Let us suppose that government intervention is immoral and responsible for the negative social externalities associated with private drug use. Let us also suppose that the universality principle would suggest that drug use is moral in the absence of government and immoral if government exists. Following Kant, should a moral actor apply the universality principle with the assumption that other agents are acting morally? Yes — I brought up the Categorical Impereative as a refernece point, not that it is the compass for my own moral system. Thanks guys. Ben, your blog is a truly a wonderland to me— a perpetual source of stimulation and entertainment, and a fun place to grow some new neurons. Kant was solely interested in what we as rational beings, can will. He derived proper motive from a priori knowledge — logical operators and so on, rather than empirical data or observations. So you cannot will not voting because that would mean willing rational creatures to universally not express reason — a logical rabbithole. This is actually a very shallow understanding of Kantian ethics. They fundamentally are wrong under Kantian ethics:. The inordinate gratification of our bodily wants is that abuse of aliments which blunts the operations of the intellect : drunkenness and gluttony are the two vices falling under this head. The drunkard renounces, for the seductive goblet, that rationality which alone proclaims the superiority of his rank; and is, while in his state of intoxication, to be dealt with as a brute only, not as a person… The former state of degradation, abject even beneath the beasts, is commonly brought about by the excessive use of fermented liquors, or of stupefying drugs, such as opium, and other products of the vegetable kingdom; the betraying power whereof lies in this, that for a while a dreamy happiness, and freedom from solicitude, or perhaps a fancied fortitude, is begotten, which, after all, concludes in despondency and sadness, and so unawares, and by insensible and unsuspected steps, introduces the need and want to repeat and to augment the stupefying dose. Gluttony must be reputed still lower in the scale of animal enjoyment; for it is purely passive, and does not waken to life the energies of Fancy,—a faculty susceptible for a long time of an active play of its perceptions during the obstupefaction of the former, upon which account gluttony is the more beastly vice. Are ethics reducible to personal decisions, as Kant says? What is the difference between that position as a human goal and that of a sociopath, who has reached it? Instead, we are social animals, and thus we are inclined to look to others for comfort and consolation in despair of not having final answers. That is the basis of ethics, and not the flight from others to an illusory autonomy. Even if Kant says different. Just my 2 cents. The basics of ethics and piety too is determining right from wrong regardless of what everyone else does. In fact, a corollary of the teachings of Jesus is that the greater the percentage of people taking the path, the more likely it is the less worthwhile. I respectfully disagree. Prophets like for instance Giordano Bruno followed their understanding of nature to their death. Well i am new here. I am an engineer and right now working with a software company. I believe that certain type of drugs like Maryjuana,Hash are not that harmfull but well addicted and i have gone through the same things as ted have mentioned above. But i am not in to this any more. I believe it gives you a greater ability to think in a wide area whether you are high or not. Car Buyers. Your email address will not be published. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Skip to content There were many fascinating comments to my previous post on drugs , and are evidence for why Cal Newport has called readers of this blog 'freakishly smart. I disagree with your comparison of voting and drug buying. Please pass the bong. Michael, I think you need a big fat toke. Track that down and get back to me. Thank God I have a cure for that. Thanks for your speedy reply and the research, Michael. Cheers, Dario. Dario, Indeed, you raised this question many months ago, and I have had it in my 'draft posts' folder ever since. Jake Bryant, Exactly. Leave A Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. And Should I?

Kant buying hash