I should probably have added that there’s not a lot of consensus in answering any of the questions! Just thought some people might not be aware that the rube goldberg thing is a serious consideration in moral philosophy.
I think in the CEO case it would be quite easy to build a compelling case that he was knowingly hurting others for his own gain on a scale that most people would agree is totally acceptable for one person.
You kid, but moral philosophy is full of examples like that.
If I leave a rake on the ground and it rusts over 5 years and then someone contracts tetanus is it my fault? If it is my fault is it just counter-factually? If it’s my fault because counterfactually I could have put the rake away and prevented the death, am I blameworthy? If I’m not blameworthy do I have any obligation to right the wrong?
Yeah that would be bad practice, industry standard is to run all the tests simultaneously and if something comes out statistically significant make up a narrative then try to split it into 4 papers.
Once our neighbor’s cat Butter was hanging out and asking for food and wouldn’t leave so we called the neighbor who said Butter was actually at home. We named kitty Chiffon instead.
I just finished digging into this so you don’t have to— his actual research article is the former (out of a cohort of 1200 people some scored higher on a test and after studying their brainMRIs there are some consistent differences).
The title and the stats about how much reading has declined in the UK from the conversation article seem to be just fluff for interest. The amount people read wasn’t a subject of the research (and wasn’t mentioned). I think the author was just trying to make his work more relatable but framing the article this way was a bad call imo.
The wannabe doppelganger noted that he didn’t have to particularly dress up for the event, saying “I wear this everywhere.”
His killer looks landed him $50.
The champ said he’s had his own issues with health insurance companies covering some of his medications, although he admitted he is not a UnitedHealthcare customer.
To have refused to charge Netanyahu and Gallant would have given the court’s implicit blessing to Israel’s dismantlement, bit by bit, of the laws of war.
It would have confirmed the criticisms of those who say the ICC serves as simply another weapon – a legal one – to be used by the US and Nato against states they dislike.
And it would have licensed other states to cite the Israel exemption as an alibi to commit their own crimes against humanity. The ICC would have doomed itself to irrelevance.
On the other hand, acting against Israel – and thereby against Washington and its European satraps – puts the court directly on a collision course with the West.
It jeopardises the international legal order the court is there to uphold – one developed immediately after the Second World War to prevent the very crimes against humanity that culminated in the Holocaust and the US atomic bombing of Japanese cities.
This is precisely Netanyahu’s goal, as Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported last week: “Netanyahu intends to turn the ICC arrest warrant against him into a global motion of no confidence against international law and its institutions.”
The likelihood is that Washington will bring the whole edifice tumbling down rather than set a precedent in which it agrees to sacrifice its highly militarised client state, strategically located in the oil-rich Middle East.
I should probably have added that there’s not a lot of consensus in answering any of the questions! Just thought some people might not be aware that the rube goldberg thing is a serious consideration in moral philosophy.
I think in the CEO case it would be quite easy to build a compelling case that he was knowingly hurting others for his own gain on a scale that most people would agree is totally acceptable for one person.