Agree with Dagon here, when omnizoid say's "Its obvious that you should" they are calling on the rules of their own morality. Its similar with "Her suffering is bad", that's a direct moral judgment. Both statements fall apart when you consider that someone may have different moral rules than you.
For example, in NZ we have an issue with deer destroying our native bush which in turn hurts our native birds. Deer are considered an invasive species and are actively eradicated. In the case when you are actively in the presence of a hurting deer empathy drives you to help, suffering is not pleasant to witness. However I suspect that many NZ's would condemn every deer in NZ to a painful death, as long as they didn't have to witness it, in order to save our trees and birdlife.
Yes, quite right (first paragraph). Am I wrong to be confident in my own beliefs? Happy to change my beliefs if your argument is convincing enough.
I think that platonic morality is a social technology with both mechanism and purpose. My definition of platonic morality is "a socially enforced set of informal rules that solve coordination problems for the benefit of the group". I would judge any particular moral rule set by how well it benefits the group. Slaves benefit their society less than doctors, even if only because resources must be spent to control them, and so they would have a lower moral weight.
Other interesting social technologies include:
Money: Coordinates exchange and stores value through shared belief
Laws: Structure behaviour through formalized rules and consequences
Limited liability companies: Enables pooling capital while limiting risk
Voting: Aggregates preferences into collective decisions
Google says that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." I think that's consistent with my definition. I suppose i have added a utilitarian aspect by giving morality a purpose. I do find that things have purposes generally, am I wrong in that or in the specific purpose I have given it?
I want to be a little careful here, i'm not saying that this or that thing is "Right" or "Wrong" that's what morality does, I'm trying to describe what "Morality" is. So yes, I suppose a slave would get a lower moral weight than a doctor, shall we say 0.8 of your average society member for the slave and 1.2 for the doctor? This is certainly what we observe in history, where skilled helpful professionals are more valued than the less skilled and not very willing.
A slave's willingness is a lot more important a factor in their utility than that of a shrimp. I would give a shrimp a moral weight of 0.0.
In the American context slavery is also wrapped up with racism, which I think is wrong from both my personal morality and also from my half-baked "recognition of usefulness helps everyone get along and makes for greater prosperity" standard.
I think that modern wage / economic slavery (doing a job) is much more efficient / effective, in part because the human is recognised and applauded for their usefulness and works much harder because of it.
You know you are quite right; I hadn't properly considered willingness. Would this work as an addendum?
"While shrimp provide value as food, this doesn't grant them moral weight in the same way voluntary cooperation does. Moral consideration stems from needing others to willingly participate in society - we care about their wellbeing because their willing cooperation matters. A shrimp's utility is independent of its willingness, making it more like a resource than a social participant."
I will grant this is not a very nice thing for the shrimp...
It seems quite plausible for someone to falsely belive they were asexual in this situation.
I understand that if you are starving or nutrient deficient (zinc, vitamin D, vitamin B12, and iron) your sex drive can be at zero. If it's like that for long enough you may think that it is because it's inherent to who you are. You are wrong, but have no way of knowing that.
So it's good persuasive writing? I mean the point of this article seems to be both an attempt to persuade the reader of a certain point of view combined with an exploration of the realisation that not everyone thinks the same way?
Looking at the points of view espoused, they seem to be quite positive for their adherents.
I don't understand your objection.
Oh and do at least three past exams for each class. Best to practice in the conditions you will be performing in.
Long term performance is a result of many skills / memes working together. I suspect you may have noticed that the children of white collar workers are more prepared for white collar work. It would make sense that they have inherited a set of memes that help with white collar work.
Academic performance isn't the only thing, consider your fail conditions. There's lots of things out there to be good at.
If you'd still like to keep going, I would say just keep practicing, I reckon it's taken me about four years to get good at my job. Look at what works and what doesn't for you.
I found that tracking my time helped with focusing on one thing at a time, having a prioritized to do list helped me focus on the right thing, having a study group helped make learning fun, easy and consistent. Trying to fit all the knowledge I needed for a class on a single a4 sheet helped me memorize what I needed (something about the refining process).
Otherwise get good sleep, lay off the substances, get some exercise in the sun and time with friends and family and you will be right as rain.
Ahh, i liked the music, but cannot find it now. Is it available somewhere?