Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:38:39
In reply to re unconscionable, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
er i'm a bit lost. are you okay? i'm sorry if i've done something / said something... i really was joking with my comment... really... it wasn't getting at you... if it was getting at anyone it was probably dr bob... sorry bob :-( but i was just kinda kidding. sorry if that comment had something to do with it.
and the new orleans bit... i'm really sorry. i think now... now... i feel like that comment was a bit below the belt and i'm really very sorry. i didn't mean for it to be. i'm sorry.
> I do understand that sometimes the gut reaction, and what seems to be the right thing to do, has unintended consequences.
yes.
i agree.you know... i bemoan the theory... but a lot of philoosphers think that emotions are a really important part of morality.. of a moral sense. of a sense of what is the right or wrong thing to do.
eg.
if you don't feel fear... then you can't exhibit the virtue of courage. because courage seems to be... somthing to do with doing something you believe to be right in the face of fear. without fear... there can't be any courage. and that seems right enough.
and some people say that in a way... the function of emotions is that... well they think emotions are perceptions. we perceive features of the world that have some significance for well being. and perciving those features... is an important part of morality. so... feeling disgust when we perceive people to be treated unfairly etc. without emotions... we wouldn't feel upset at injustices. without feeling upset at injustices. we wouldnt' notice injustices. without noticing injustices... we woudn't do anything to remidy them...
> And that the unintended consequences are what lead reasonable people to differ in these matters.
yes.
yes.
yes.i firmly believe this. really truely. that is what i believe :-)
that is why i think people do tend to converge after... they converge on a DESCRIPTION of the situation and a description of the consequences.
so the process goes someting like this...
different people describe the way the situation seems to them...
then... you try and converge on a description.
then you consider the consequences of doing this...
and the consequences of doing that...and people just throw up ideas and considerations...
then you weigh those things...
and people point out other considerations... people point out where maybe reasoning has gone wrong too (happens to everybody sometimes cause we aren't ideal reasoners)
and then... convergence.
:-)
unintended consequences... yup.
i mean...
consider intellectual copyright laws.
consider a 'pro' description:something along the lines of... it is important to research to discover things to prevent these diseases and / or cure these diseases. people won't / can't do that research without some kind of funding. the govt. only has so much of that... the drug companies have much more available... but... they can't throw money into research unless they can recoup some of that later. if there are intellectual property laws patient laws etc then the drug companies can make their investment back. for every product they get up off the ground there is a lot of money spent on products that didn't get up off the ground. on reesarch projects that didn't eventuate in anything. of dead ends etc. that costs a lot. when they get a patient it might sound lik ethey make a lot but they have to recuperate the costs of the dead ends too. they wouldn't have an incentive to invest in research if they didnt' make it back. they probably couldn't afford to invest in research if they didn't make it back. if they don't invest in research tehn ... we won't discover preventions / cures. currently... not all can access them. but some can. and some are better than none. adn eventually... the patents will expire anyways.
sounds reasonable to me...
then consider the description from the other camp:
drug companies make back far more than they invest. they withhold lifesaving medication from pepole because they are greedy for profits. kind of like... the case over on social that legwarmers posted about... we should abolish the copyright thingimie and the drug companies have a moral obligation to provide their product at cost so that many lives are saved (peoples lives over profits)
and there is some truth to both sides...currently... i know a guy who is working on coming up with a fairer patent system. one that provides an incentive for companies to invest... and one that makes it feasible for everyone to have the medication they need.
comprimise.. but working out the details are very tricky and hard.
but i think...
both sides can converge.
have to believe that or there isn't any hope :-(
poster:special_k
thread:621784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/623833.html