Question about Kantian ethics

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fairbanks
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 05:24 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
. . . Kierkegaard writes:


For Kant, only rational beings (e.g. most human beings) are bound to the moral law, the law which one gives himself. Non-rational beings cannot be bound to the moral law, as they have not bound themselves to the moral law.


Smile

All beings are rational and come with the moral law, standard equipment. No reply necessary, just testing the image thing
 
Arjen
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 04:05 pm
@Fairbanks,
I spotted this topic and wanted to give Krazy (and perhaps other interested readers) some backgrounf information on Kant, his ethics, the foundations of it and where he finds his basis . That is a whole lot for one post I think, so I am going to start by responding to two themes that have been leading in this topic; which will show where Kant finds his basis and explain a little of his ethics. I will not go into the ethics of Kant himself in this post, but maybe add that tomorrow or wait for any related questions/posts/arguments.

Deontology and Teleology
'Teleology' is the form of ethics which foucusses on 'goals'. The word refers to the Greek word 'telos', which means 'goal', or 'end'. Anybody familiar with Aristotle's ethics might recognise the word. Aristotle's ethics is often used as an example of teleology (as is 'utalitariasm'). Aristotle's virtue-ethics focus on the end (telos) for which humans were created; which he names 'eudaimonia'; a form of happiness/joy. This eudaimonia is the 'goal' for which humans should strive. It takes the place of a certain 'rulebase' which people should live according to. The most famous of such 'rulebases' might be the ten commandments of judaism/christianity.
'Deontology' is the form of ethics which focusses on on 'duty'. The word refers to the Greek word 'deon', which means 'duty', or 'obligation'. Two famous deontologists are Kant and Nietzsche. Their pilosophies are examples of deontology because they base themselves not on what might be (hypothetically) best for themselves, but on how one should behave in such a way that one could will that everybody would behave.

Perhaps Kant's question "Was soll ich tun?" (What am I to do?) summs up the difference between deontology and teleology best. A deontologist decides upon his actions by behaving in such a manner that he or she would want to be treated him or herself. In that sense everything the actor judges as 'not good' will be filtered out. Even if some actions are judged 'not good' by others, the actor was not aware of that and the intent is therefore 'good'. This is perfectly according to Kant's idea of 'good'. He states that things may be 'good' or 'not good', like apples. It is something about an apple which makes it 'good' or 'not good' (the intent).
A teleologist on the other hand would be primarily occupied by the 'goal' which is persued. Sometimes an inter-act-ion may be required of which the actor is certain he or she would not will it upon him or herself, never wondering what to do, because 'the good' is to be acquired.
This is the reason why Kant states "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Reason
Aristotle focussed in his ethics on the fact that man can reason as a means to attain his eudaimonia. This may be very true indeed because of the fact that 'good' or 'not good' are judgements. Judgements occur when reasoning. Therefore reason itself is that from which ethical formulations follow. Any 'moral law' one binds oneself to is a product of that persons reason. Any person acts according to what one thinks is appropriate (perhaps after the question "Was soll ich tun?"). I thought the Kierkegaard quote was very nice by the way.

The evolution which has taken place goes from Aristotle and Plato to Descartes, Spinoza and then to kant. Kant combines so much in his metaphisics that it almost seems as if he has hit a central point in reality, but perhaps it is only a central spot in western thought and philosophy that he has hit.

By doubting everything Descartes points to something which necessarily exists (thought itself) in the sense that everything can be doubted, but when one doubts one is still thinking because doubt is thought. Thought needs something to trigger it; something to act on it. Descartes calls this 'God' and that is why the things humanity percieves are, in fact, real.

Spinoza takes things a step further, declaring that 'God' is all ( alert), which has two attributes we know of and perhaps more: reason and extension. In Spinoza's philosophies everything is 'God', so 'God' plays an active role in every life, even to the point of being the impuls which leads to thought, more or less like Descartes.

Kant takes things home in seperating thought from thought-objects. Thought itself is something else than thought-objects and thought exists a priori. This thought is what is called 'God' by Spinoza and Descartes. Kant claiming that this is an a priori part of all rational beings did not set well with the church by the bay. It was thought heretical and many disappeared into the inquisitions pyre's for saying anything besides 'God' was a priori.

Thought being what all metaphysics has in common and thought being the source of all thought-objects (judgements!), any ethical research must necessarily include the workings of thinking. This is what Kant does in his works and his ethics is unshakebly rooted in his metaphysics.







Allright, I am going to leave it at this for now. I hope this has cleared some things up. If some of you want I would like to get deeper into Kant's metaphysics and his ethics. I hope some of you enjoy this post.

Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:59 pm
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks wrote:
All beings are rational and come with the moral law, standard equipment.
Are you sure we're all rational? Reason takes a back seat to emotion when you're grieving, when you're hopeless, and when you're forlorn and lovestruck. And reason takes a back seat to biology when you're overtired, in terrible pain, or when you get a big tumor in your frontal lobe. So while under some ideal conditions we're rational, we certainly don't default to a rational state. Most of us CAN be rational, but then again most of us can also be Olympic calibre athletes under some conditions that few of us experience. So it's hard to accept that reason is some essential, primary quality of ours.

Thus, if "moral law" (still undefined vis a vis this conversation!!!) is beholden to reason, then morality is subject to all the other things that can interfere.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 09:17 pm
@krazy kaju,
Smile
I do not know if this would have much bearing on the case, BUT, recent biology has indicated that the fetus is informed within the womb rearranging or rewriting its genes according to the perceptions of the environment of the parents, more particulary the mother, so intelligence it would seem is difficult to determine just when it starts, just as it was once believed by many that intelligence was the sole property of the mind instead of the whole body, so to this new info should give us doubt about the intelligence of the unborn. The fetus does have apparently experience and knowledge of the mothers body/environment before birth, and accorddingly if its genes are written of the knowledge of the outside physcial world we are on very shaky ground here, to deny intelligence.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 09:31 pm
@boagie,
Could reason not be emotion and logic is a rational supposition of emotion put into lingual terms that cloud the fact, due to how language seems apparently diffrent from emotion.

When our thought and reactionary nature comes from feeling our environment thus experiencing something.

Random thought, imagining; can be done when less of environment is being perceived thus dreaming. Although I have no facts to support such an absurd idea.

Edit:
And of course nothing is purely random
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 10:36 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
recent biology has indicated that the fetus is informed within the womb rearranging or rewriting its genes
As written this doesn't really make sense biologically. More likely there are changes in gene expression, though you'll have to show me how they know this without going in and biopsying the baby throughout pregnancy to do genetic analysis.

Quote:
so intelligence it would seem is difficult to determine just when it starts
Intelligence is generally regarded as a statement of potential, not of achievement, so it "starts" with the two gametes. If one happens to be carrying an extra chromosome 21, then whammo you have a Down syndrome karyotype and limited intelligence. As development goes on, environmental factors will affect intelligence (think of fetal alcohol syndrome). But as you know cognitive development goes on for a long, long time, and there are plenty of external circumstances that can limit further development.

Quote:
The fetus does have apparently experience and knowledge of the mothers body/environment before birth
Yes -- voice perception, light/dark perception, movement perception, etc.

Quote:
and accorddingly if its genes are written of the knowledge of the outside physcial world we are on very shaky ground here, to deny intelligence.
They're not. That's not how genes work.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 10:48 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes,Smile

Well certainly I would respect your opinion but my source is of this new information on the biology of belief. Please find link below, and let me know what you think of this said to be breakthrough. PS, there are a number of youtube talks about this new understanding by Dr Bruce Lipton.

YouTube - The New Biology- From Victim to Master of Your Health










YouTube - Buce Lipton - Biology of Perception 1 of 7








YouTube - Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 3 of 7










YouTube - Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 7 of 7
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 11:16 pm
@boagie,
Oh for god's sake Boagie, the video agrees 100% with the point I made. He is talking about epigenetics!!!!! He is NOT talking about "rewriting genes". Genes have a given chemical sequence that is not "rewritten" -- but the function of genes can be controlled by non-genetic factors that physically interact with genes and gene products -- the best studied ones are hormones, plain and simple hormones, but also include histone proteins, siRNA molecules, acetylation, methylation (the latter mainly in bacteria), etc. And these are indeed amenable to various external biological factors. There is an immense difference between a gene as a structural entity and gene expression as a functional process that uses a gene as a template but many other factors that modulate it.

Beyond that, the video is pretty soft and wishy washy. He presents epigenetics as if it's some revolution, whereas I've been learning about it since I was in high school in the late 1980s (though the word "epigenetics" wasn't used so often until recently). People have been studying the epigenetic control of promoter sequences (a noncoding region of DNA that modulates gene expression) for over a generation. This is not a new biology -- though there are new things discovered within it all the time.

When he says that the mind is above the gene, it's wholly unsupported hogwash to say that the mind controls gene expression. It doesn't. It has some degree of influence on it, but it does not have some central executive control. He's selectively omitting about a billion steps in between the two.

Edit -- I posted this before you linked your second video. I have to go to bed and get up at work for 5 AM so I'll watch it some other time.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 11:37 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes,

Well thanks for the input Aedes, I would imagine a lot of lay people would be taken in by this, is there no control over someone behaving in an irresponsible way like this, why is he allowed to mislead the public? So it is basically a scam, I thought there was more control in the scientific community that would prevent outrageous claims. At anyrate thanks for steering me clear of this.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 11:47 pm
@boagie,
Boagie,

He's only misleading in the way he sort of inevitably leads to himself as the purveyor of an undiscovered breakthrough. He's correct in the first 5 minutes that our understanding of genetic control has changed a lot since Watson and Crick (though he could have made his point in about 15 seconds). He's correct that there are epigenetic controls of gene expression.

But then he makes a leap of logic to "the mind" controlling gene expression, which I'm sure would be a plug for his internet quackery storefront (Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center). The way in which he sort of dichotomizes the old and the new is pretty convincing evidence that he's not out to really present and breakdown science.

Haven't watched the Bruce Lipton videos, I'll get to them some other time. But to answer your question in an oblique way, the internet has a lot of information of varying quality, and it's nearly impossible for laypeople to discern a reliable source from an unreliable one. I get this from patients all the time, who read about this or that on the internet.

Speaking of which, I really do need to go to sleep.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 02:29 am
@Aedes,
I am going to try to get this topic back ontopic by making these two statements:

1) If indeed the genes are controlled by the brain, the question is merely placed in a different place as rationalism shows. Apparently something is present a priori and knowledge only comes into play a posteriori. This is the basis of Kant's metaphysical 'model'.

2) Emotions are based on thoughts. People laugh or cry depending on their frame of reference. I might be a fan of the Dodgers for instance and cheer when they have scored. At a later time in my life I may have forgot all about the Dodgers and, when seeing them score I have no change in my emotional state. That proves that emotional responses are 'learned behavior'. This again points to Kant's 'model' of metaphysics.

p.s. I do think the medical sidestep is interesting. It just moves the difficulties to another place and does not solve anything. But that might be just my opinion.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 09:08 am
@Arjen,
I agree that the medical and biological aspects, while intersting, are besides the point.

As for emotion and thought, clearly babies and toddlers can have happiness, sadness, anger, frustration, affection, love, etc without having capacity for reason or truly organized thoughts about a subject.

There is certainly a mutual and simultaneous influence between emotions and thoughts, but I think that emotions depend a lot less on one's capacity for thought than the opposite.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 09:19 am
@Aedes,
Aedes,

Do you remember how massive and overwhelming emotion was when you were a child?

It's often occured to me that organized thought is a way of dealing with that depth and power of emotion - of chanelling it, though I've not thought much about it beyond that.

How's you and yours?

regards,

iconoclast.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:38 am
@Aedes,
I'll reply to this thread in a series of multiquotes, we'll see how it works out.

Fairbanks wrote:
Smile

No dictators allowed. No monopoly allowed.


Government is, by definition, a monopoly over certain aspects of society, most notably over law and order. You can't have a private court with a different system of laws, punishments, etc. competing with the government's courts.

The modern nation state has other monopolies. For examle, the US gov't has a monopoly over the postal service. The Canadian gov't has a monopoly over health insurance and health care. The Canadian gov't also has a monopsomy over agriculture. The UK gov't used to have a monopoly over coal mines.

Quote:
Individuals do not make up the state. Institutions make up the state and they are constrained both by their charters, written or unwritten, and individual non-understanding of the nature of the state. Institutions can be anything but intelligent and they therefore have no desire and no moral law.


Individuals make up the institutions that make up the state. Again, there really is no such thing as "the state." It is simply a group of individuals who are in a position of power.

Here's a thought experiment: are mobs and gangs subject to moral laws? According to your logic, a mob isn't but a gang is. Whereas a mob could be said to be made up of various "institutions" (i.e. group A deals heroin, group B is the hitman squad), the mob is not bound to moral rules whereas the gang, which is much smaller and clearly made up of individuals, is. The fallacy is that you're ignoring that the institutions that make up the mob are made up of individuals, so the mob is really no different from the gang or the state. All are made up of individuals, and if accept that there is some kind of universal ethical system, then those organizations should follow those rules just as individuals do.

Fairbanks wrote:
Smile

I would agree that the state is not a being, but an existing thing. Morals cannot be legislated, so they say, and they are right even if they don't know how. The state can impose ethics on its officials. Even though the terms originally meant about the same--morals and ethics--no more than custom or tradition, ethics has come to take on a legal significance. Moral law should remain as Kant had it, that inner law that guides intelligent decision.


I'm confused. The point I'm making is that the state, since it is made of individuals, is bound to the same moral rules that individuals are bound to. If moral rules are an inner law that guide individuals, shouldn't that also apply to a group of individuals, like the state?

Fairbanks wrote:
Smile

Abortion would be a tough problem for ethics class. But, Kant's examples were mainly directed toward personal choice that did not involve outright murder. He might choose a different publisher for his new Critique and never explain why to the new owner.


The point of this thread is to ask "what if" Kant was still around. What does his ethical system say about treating future moral agents?

I think we all agree that most humans (exceptions: unborn, infants, severely retarded, brain dead) are capable of moral deliberation and thus should be treated as ends in Kantian ethics. The key question is whether the unborn and infants should be treated as ends as well since they will be capable of moral deliberation in the future.

Aedes wrote:
What is moral law and what makes someone bound to it?


Well, the assumption of this thread is that there is a universal ethical system that everyone is "bound" to in the sense that all of your actions can be objectively called "right" or "wrong."
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:40 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Are you sure we're all rational? Reason takes a back seat to emotion when you're grieving, when you're hopeless, and when you're forlorn and lovestruck. And reason takes a back seat to biology when you're overtired, in terrible pain, or when you get a big tumor in your frontal lobe. So while under some ideal conditions we're rational, we certainly don't default to a rational state. Most of us CAN be rational, but then again most of us can also be Olympic calibre athletes under some conditions that few of us experience. So it's hard to accept that reason is some essential, primary quality of ours.

Thus, if "moral law" (still undefined vis a vis this conversation!!!) is beholden to reason, then morality is subject to all the other things that can interfere.


Smile Sure we are all rational. Reasonable is a different matter.

Moral law remains something that must be there even if we can't describe it or define it. When we decide, we get a feeling that we are aligned with the moral law or not, which not an aesthetic feeling but the moral feeling. If we let our inclination to take the last cookie--even though we have already had two and a child in the next room that doesn't know there is a cookie left there has had none--win the decision, we might get away with it and feel like a cad forever after, even though the moral law is not real specific about the cookies and child rule.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:48 am
@boagie,
Aedes wrote:
Are you sure we're all rational? Reason takes a back seat to emotion when you're grieving, when you're hopeless, and when you're forlorn and lovestruck. And reason takes a back seat to biology when you're overtired, in terrible pain, or when you get a big tumor in your frontal lobe. So while under some ideal conditions we're rational, we certainly don't default to a rational state. Most of us CAN be rational, but then again most of us can also be Olympic calibre athletes under some conditions that few of us experience. So it's hard to accept that reason is some essential, primary quality of ours.

Thus, if "moral law" (still undefined vis a vis this conversation!!!) is beholden to reason, then morality is subject to all the other things that can interfere.


The definition of "rational" can vary greatly. For example, in economics, rationality is simply the ability to learn from your mistakes (rational expectations) and the ability to maximize your own utility.

In ethics, I'd say that "rational" refers to anyone capable of moral deliberation. In that sense, most inorganic materials as well as most organisms could be considered "arational" or "irrational" (depending on how you view it) since they are not capable of moral deliberation.

boagie wrote:
Smile
I do not know if this would have much bearing on the case, BUT, recent biology has indicated that the fetus is informed within the womb rearranging or rewriting its genes according to the perceptions of the environment of the parents, more particulary the mother, so intelligence it would seem is difficult to determine just when it starts, just as it was once believed by many that intelligence was the sole property of the mind instead of the whole body, so to this new info should give us doubt about the intelligence of the unborn. The fetus does have apparently experience and knowledge of the mothers body/environment before birth, and accorddingly if its genes are written of the knowledge of the outside physcial world we are on very shaky ground here, to deny intelligence.


The question isn't when intelligence starts, but when you are able of moral deliberation and whether or not the future prospect of you being a moral agent grants you the right to be treated as an "end" now.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:53 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
Do you remember how massive and overwhelming emotion was when you were a child?
Sure. And I experienced it last night with my baby, now 4 months old, who NEVER cries ordinarily -- but last night he was overtired and he would cry hysterically every time we put him down to sleep. Only being in our arms would get him to calm down. I mean he smiles, he laughs, he knows when he's being funny, and at the other end of the spectrum he can be sad, especially when he's tired and not feeling so well. That's no different than the rest of us, right?

Quote:
It's often occured to me that organized thought is a way of dealing with that depth and power of emotion - of channeling it
I think that's true to some degree, but to be sure I think it's really rationalization (and not thought per se) that serves this channeling role. That's why we have to be very circumspect about reason -- because we can make things seem very reasonable, but only an inch below the surface we find the irrational process spurring it on.

Quote:
How's you and yours?
Great, thanks for asking! Max slept for 10 hours straight once we got him to sleep. How are you doing? Haven't seen you for a while.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:54 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
As for emotion and thought, clearly babies and toddlers can have happiness, sadness, anger, frustration, affection, love, etc without having capacity for reason or truly organized thoughts about a subject.


... not to mention dogs, cats, chimpanzees, gorillas, bears, wolves, etc. That's just within the range of what is "visible" emotion. There could be many other emotional organisms, but we just wouldn't be able to tell since they don't make facial expressions, wag their tails, play, growl, meow excessively, etc.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 11:11 am
@krazy kaju,
krazy kaju wrote:
I'll reply to this thread in a series of multiquotes, we'll see how it works out.


I will try that format as well Smile

krazy kaju wrote:
Government is, by definition, a monopoly over certain aspects of society, most notably over law and order. You can't have a private court with a different system of laws, punishments, etc. competing with the government's courts.


Smile Here I distinguish betwen the state and the Gov't. The Gov't is merely another institution of the state. Other institutions can indeed compete with Gov't offices. For example, news services, fire dept, militia.

krazy kaju wrote:
The modern nation state has other monopolies. For examle, the US gov't has a monopoly over the postal service. The Canadian gov't has a monopoly over health insurance and health care. The Canadian gov't also has a monopsomy over agriculture. The UK gov't used to have a monopoly over coal mines.


Smile Many constitutions are possible. Aristotle collected constitutions as well as botanical specimens. Many species, some he did not have a proper name for.

krazy kaju wrote:
Individuals make up the institutions that make up the state. Again, there really is no such thing as "the state." It is simply a group of individuals who are in a position of power.


Smile The state is in need of philosophical work. I believe it has received inadequate competent attention, Aristotle and Hegel notwithstanding.


krazy kaju wrote:
Here's a thought experiment: are mobs and gangs subject to moral laws? According to your logic, a mob isn't but a gang is. Whereas a mob could be said to be made up of various "institutions" (i.e. group A deals heroin, group B is the hitman squad), the mob is not bound to moral rules whereas the gang, which is much smaller and clearly made up of individuals, is. The fallacy is that you're ignoring that the institutions that make up the mob are made up of individuals, so the mob is really no different from the gang or the state. All are made up of individuals, and if accept that there is some kind of universal ethical system, then those organizations should follow those rules just as individuals do.


Smile We might look for other kinds of instututions. Not all institutions are made of individuals. Baseball, for example. What is that?

krazy kaju wrote:
I'm confused. The point I'm making is that the state, since it is made of individuals, is bound to the same moral rules that individuals are bound to. If moral rules are an inner law that guide individuals, shouldn't that also apply to a group of individuals, like the state?


Smile Moral law is not defined but surmised and it is not something anybody is bound to. Moral law is whatever it is that allows creation of rules, or proper maxims that promote the highest good.

krazy kaju wrote:
The point of this thread is to ask "what if" Kant was still around. What does his ethical system say about treating future moral agents?


Smile Kant left it up to whoever might be interested to extend his system. How Kant might decide would be idle speculation.

krazy kaju wrote:
I think we all agree that most humans (exceptions: unborn, infants, severely retarded, brain dead) are capable of moral deliberation and thus should be treated as ends in Kantian ethics. The key question is whether the unborn and infants should be treated as ends as well since they will be capable of moral deliberation in the future.


:)Not only means, but ends in themselves. We don't even know if the brain dead are thereby bereft of reason, so we are probably not treating them as ends in themselves, so there is a break in the system.

krazy kaju wrote:
Well, the assumption of this thread is that there is a universal ethical system that everyone is "bound" to in the sense that all of your actions can be objectively called "right" or "wrong."


Smile The moral question is whether the act furthers progress toward the highest good.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 02:53 pm
@Fairbanks,
Aedes,

Oh that's great - a son named Max, you must be so proud. Another emotion, but one with a large rational element. I'm realizing more and more that the rational and emotional are not diametrically opposed - but I'd still maintain the epistemological superiority of scientific knowledge.

This is what I meant by chanelling - the concept: pride, being a form and structure of expression of an emotion that in childhood is unstructured, and perhaps so huge for that reason. But it's just a passing thought.

I'm good - all goes as well as it might. I've been giving you a break - but now I'm back, still trying to get people to face what I believe to be the most significant philosophical issue of our age - the very real and increasing probability of human extinction resulting from action in the course of epsitemologically unsound ideas. I'm not having a great deal of sucess, here or elsewhere I'm afraid, but the fault may not be mine:

Quote:
Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecedented event:
Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.
In cultures where human extinction is not expected the proposition must overcome the "disconfirmation bias" against heterodox theories.
Another reliable psychological effect relevant here is the "positive outcome bias".
Behavioural finance has strong evidence that recent evidence is given undue significance in risk analysis. Roughly speaking, "100 year storms" tend to occur every twenty years in the stock market as traders become convinced that the current good times will last forever. Doomsayers who hypothesize rare crisis-scenarios are dismissed even when they have statistical evidence behind them. An extreme form of this bias can diminish the subjective probability of the unprecedented. (wikipedia.)


Apart from problems with risk assessment, there's personal mortality over religious ideation, and implied criticism on patriotic and economic lines all acting as obstacles to recognition of this problem. Maybe it's impossible, but I'm obliged to try by knowledge of that which I'm unable to communicate!

:perplexed:

iconoclast.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2024 at 07:37:20