Jump to content

grrclark

Members
  • Content count

    4,151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About grrclark

  • Rank

  • Birthday 06/06/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    Fife, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

505 profile views
  1. Born evil?

    It is absolutely designed to make you think about moral and ethical choices and also understand how we arrive at those choices. A great and real example of a similar dilemma happened in the recent Las Vegas shooting incident, in order to get victims to hospital a guy who was there stole a pickup truck to put some of the injured in and drove them to hospital himself. So consciously making himself a thief in order to try and save a life. Of course in so doing he may have unwittingly denied the owner of the pickup an opportunity to escape or ferry his own wounded family to hospital, or potentially risk being shot by the truck owner/police forces for stealing the truck. What would you have done in that situation? The scenario is of course different, but the ethical and moral dilemma is the very same.
  2. Born evil?

    OK, why you have over thought the question and with a bit of pseudo science thrown into the mix as well, because it is really quite fascinating, or at least I think it is. You constructed a single scenario that involved violence and threat with menace and used that as a justification for your argument. A 100% contrived scenario to arrive at a specific pre formed conclusion. This is known as "Backward Induction". You also demonstrated "Convergent Thinking" by using your pre-determined scenario in order to arrive at an outcome to the question. As it is an entirely hypothetical question the theft of the wonder drugs could be in a multitude of forms and also doesn't have to conform to any particular reality, it is hypothetical and that is "Speculative Reasoning". But for the purpose of example an entirely contrary scenario is perhaps someone else had a prescription issued for the same drug, popped the box into an open topped bag and the desperate husband, who was waiting in the pharmacy to plead for cheap drugs, took advantage of 100% opportunism and seized his chance to act as a pick pocket and lift them out the bag. Ta da, wonder drug now secured, no threats of violence, the theft undiscovered until the other unlucky victim gets home and his wife goes on to live a happy and healthy life. Or another scenario, the chemist had prepared the prescription and put it down on the counter to write out labels, the phone rang and he turned his back for a moment, at this point the distraught husband who was all set to plead with the chemist for a cut price deal seized the opportunity to grab the wonder drug off the counter and make a run for it. Once again no threats of violence, just pure opportunism and again a happy and healthy wife. Using multiple constructed theories to derive at a conclusion is known as "Divergent Thinking" Of course all of the above scenarios are overthinking because they all miss the point entirely, the question is really a very simple one; is doing something "wrong" ever justified in a given context? This is known as "Motivated Reasoning" As Henry pointed out, it is a question that is designed to establish someones understanding of what may constitute right and wrong, how their process of thinking and reasoning works in making ethical decisions. What is fascinating however is seeing how various people on this thread have both interpreted and reacted to the question. What it does perfectly highlight is the differing thought processes that people adopt, there is a science to "thinking". As a final bit of rather dull geekery this entire post is an example of "Metacognition" which is thinking about thinking. Sorry for the thread drift Henry.
  3. His sign was not justified in the least. If his sign said "No Thieves" or "No Stealing Fish" it would be justified. The key thing being that the act of theft was highlighted as the reason for the sign. To then conflate all Eastern Europeans as being responsible for that theft is a discriminatory generalisation and therefore completely and wholly unjustified. It is also wrong. The part of the guidance note on the government website that you highlighted would be justification for a sign saying "No Men" on the door of a ladies changing room. It does make me wonder if the sign saying "No Eastern Europeans" was so effective as to prevent the theft of fish then wouldn't a sign simply saying "No Theft" be as equally effective?
  4. Born evil?

    You are desperately over thinking a potential scenario and in so doing missing the point of the question itself. It is a hypothetical question of relative morality and not a consideration of how such a theft could be perpetrated or otherwise. Take away the scenario of a chemist and drugs, the question simply asks is saving or prolonging someone's life worth committing a crime for?
  5. Born evil?

    Haha some huge leaps of assumption beyond the original question. A big philosophical question, answer is both yes and no, but not going to drag Henry's thread off topic.
  6. Born evil?

    I would disagree. 1. It is absolutely right for the man to ask the drugs to be sold at cost, although the pharmacist may not agree to do that, but it is right to ask. 2. Stealing is wrong, but is the penalty for theft worth the sacrifice to spare his wife's life? It is a accepting that sometimes in life we have to make choices based on a value decision, often taking the least worse option, but when none of the choices are particularly desirable. 3. The ethics of the last are incredibly complex and grey, the pharmacist may well be a villain and being highly exploitative, or he could just commercially astute and recognising he has a product people will pay handsomely for, but if he holds out for the top dollar price then he has to accept he is effectively pricing some people out of life.
  7. Born evil?

    It is a good question and one definitely well worth asking. I absolutely agree that there are some people who are wired up such that they are not suitable to live in regular society, that can be as much about their propensity to do harm to themselves as well as others, whether with malicious intent or not. As I mentioned earlier, me saying that I believe people are born evil does need to be qualified, there are a multitude of factors that will influence what the final outcome for that person will be. IG used better words when he said some people are born with a predisposition to being evil. I don't think every wrong un is born that way, i think the majority of problems is really due to social and behavioural conditioning and those folk deserve the opportunity of rehabilitation, I think that serves us better as a society than adopting a purely penal approach. Even in the case of some serious offences. In the case of those where there is something in their wiring that suggests they cannot be rehabilitated because they just don't have the necessary mental capacity for that then I absolutely would favour adopting a much more precautionary approach where we must assume they are a continual risk and remove them from society. In case it was misunderstood or miscommunicated previously, in the case of JV I believe that he should be removed from society for life. I know, very loosely, two guys that have been convicted of murder, they drink in a local pub. Both men are now in their later years and both were convicted in their late 20s. In the case of both it was drink related violence, one of them used a pickaxe shaft to beat up a guy who roughed up his girlfriend and obviously killed him. The other fella was related to a gang rivalry and in a fight beat a guy to death. In their youth both guys admit they were always in or around trouble, they both came from a background where their parents were always in or around trouble and they both grew up in a rough part of town. It was likely inevitable that they would have ended up in jail at some point for petty crime, but for both their first and only jail sentence was for murder. Both men came out in their 40s and both managed to find work, neither of them have committed any further offence and post sentence they both contributed back to society. It just so happens that there are 2 guys who drink in that bar with that background, but there will be people with similar stories the length and breadth of the land. For these fellas they were rehabilitated, it was purely social conditioning that led to their criminal behaviour and whilst both were obviously no angels neither were they predisposed to being monsters. The point of that ramble is that the severity of the crime is perhaps not enough in itself to determine whether rehabilitation is a good or bad option, but I do think that we absolutely have to recognise that for some it simply is not an option.
  8. Alexa

    It is always listening and the content of what it is listening to is stored. Not so long ago there was a warrant served against Amazon for retrieval of records in a murder trial where it was believed that Alexa was a witness to the murder. If you consider the amount of tracking that goes on when you browse the web, the things you look at, the path that you took to get there, how many times you look, etc and all that data is stored to create a digital profile of you. Add the ever listening Alexa into that mix, when you ask your other half "what do you fancy for tea?" Or "what do you think about Boris Johnsons speech", etc I know it sounds paranoid, but I shall paste a link in a couple of minutes (when I find it) about social value scoring in China and then join the dots of just what Big Data means and how Alexa, Google, Cortana, Siri can contribute. Edit to add: Here is the link, it is a longish read and not directly related, but consider the wider elements of data surveillance or social profiling through data acquisition. it's a great discussion really. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion
  9. Born evil?

    I believe that he had a major crisis of conscience afterwards. The reason for asking the question is that we mostly tend to have a relatavistic view on the world, but is that right? What may be considered genius in a given context could very conceivably be evil in another. Contentious statement, but in many respects Hitler was a genius. A genius in understanding social desire, a genius in sociobehavioural manipulation, an orator of incredible talent, yet he was an evil little ******* capable of immense inhumanity. His genious however corrupted so many into carrying out acts of astonishing cruelty and unquestionable evil. To my mind Hitler was born with the right wiring that enabled him to become the creature he was. Did he have megolamaniacal tendencies from infancy? no, because that is a contrived construct, but the man was born preconditioned such he could behave as he did. If he was on the winning side would we still say the same thing? So back to Oppenheimer, born with the right wiring for science genius or a lack of humanity such that he could invent the most destructive and indiscriminatory weapon ever conceived?
  10. Alexa

    I don't have one, because I think they are the most hideous invasion of privacy, but the Philips Hue lighting system is an ace gadget to work with. I have some Hue lights in my office/gin bothy that I can control with Siri and to my easily pleased mind they are fantastic. Especially after indulging in said gin when the office work is done 😁
  11. Born evil?

    I go with that, some people for whatever reason are predisposed to be evil. I do think there are other factors at play, but to my mind undoubtably some folk are wired up in a way from birth that means they are capable of things that most others are not. To follow that theme, and take things off at a tangent, and challenge the thinking a little was J Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atomic bomb) evil? Undoubtably born with the right makeup to facilitate genius, but that genius opened a pandoras box that could yet be the mechanism of the end of humanity. Surely no bigger evil could be imagined. It is much more of a philosophical question and not a literal one.
  12. puch maxi tuning,anyone done it.

    Absolutely, the two are not really comparable at all, other than icing is to be avoided in all cases. It would be interesting to know how much difference it would make if you were doing this tuning in the summer where the air is warmer and much less moisture laden. You might well have to make changes to jet sizes and spark gaps as you get into the warmer weather.
  13. puch maxi tuning,anyone done it.

    That's one of the main reasons why I dropped the performance carb' off of my Bug, it is just far too fickle to try and maintain a reliable mix. Gone back to the traditional oil filled air cleaner as well where the intake air is a little bit warmer, it does lose power as less air is being sooked into the engine, but it's a worthwhile sacrifice to keep the car drivable all across the rev range.
×