If any moron on a street corner could correctly point out the errors being made by bigshot PhDs, why would the PhDs never consider changing? A few of these are completely made up and based on radical misunderstandings of what economists are even trying to do. As for the rest, my impression is that economists not only know about these criticisms, but invented them. During the last few paradigm shifts in economics, the new guard levied these complaints against the old guard, mostly won, and their arguments percolated down into the culture as The Correct Arguments To Use Against Economics.
Patriarchies tend to be very paternalistic, by having a strong behavioral norms. But many forms of paternalism are not patriarchal.
Tekhno January 18, at 3: Not to mention causing problems with drugs that are controlled because they may cause birth defects, or create drug resistance, or other externalities. Deiseach January 18, at 3: Was he intensely stupid? Yes and I say that even if it was cocaine or something else he bought.
Did he deserve to die? The outcry would be massive and the upheaval more than any elected or other representative would want to touch.
Tekhno January 18, at 4: The kid died because people were selling the drug with no such information in place, meaning that fraud would be occurring under a new system.
A warning message was issued by doctors after the fact, and did not come as part of the drug transaction as part of a legal regime. This is more a failure of enforcement. Ultimately, at what point are we okay with people having control of their own life and death and taking risks with the knowledge of possible death in mind?
But just how many fences do you need to add around something before we accept that someone chose the outcome?
It all seems to be all or nothing. It would have to be sold through regular channels and subject to the warning information and discouragement tax scheme. Most people would rather trust some authority to decide what drugs are okay, and it would be a ballsy or desperate minority who would decide to go down this avenue.
In this case you are providing care for people who would otherwise die, but also letting adults put their lives in their own hands if they want, with sufficient warning to make them culpable for it.
Jiro January 18, at 5: Privatizing Medicaid, to the extent it kills people, kills them from poverty, not from stupidity.
Tekhno January 18, at 5: The number of fences that would be similar to legal culpability standards in most other realms of life seems to be a good starting place. It would probably be a good idea to make those consistent at some point anyway. People treat these two things differently, and rightly so.
A great many brilliant and wonderful people could tragically die of poverty due to bad circumstances, whereas no one of benefit to humanity wrapped a cape around their neck and tried to fly off the grand canyon. No one sheds tears for Darwin Award winners.
This is even more reason for the public to not completely shut down such a proposal versus the privatization proposals which already carry some weight.
Most people are not utilitarians Me neither. We all get to enjoy fast cars and be cheeky with the speed limits, because we categorize someone speeding on a straight motorway differently from some crazy loon overtaking on blind country bends at mph. Jiro January 18, at This is far different from nobody doing so.
I think people are far more willing to accept deaths that are due to fault The point is that people want separate efforts made to mitigate both kinds of deaths. The example of recreational research chemicals came up, and those are orders of magnitude cheaper than the drugs they imitate, even when ordered in relatively small quantities 1 g.
It seems like there could either be issues with patent trolls owning a bunch of Pharma IP with little invested effort maybe this already happens? Lots of conversations about FDA regulation focus solely on new drug approval because those costs are enormous, but there is also a lot of ongoing work to ensure quality control for the approved drugs.
To some extent it feels like things could skew towards the state of the supplement industry, where quality control is a frequent issue.THE SUPREME PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty.
Students discuss the morality of selling human life, the legal issues surrounding consent and contracts, and the power of maternal rights.
Episode Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality. Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and . So far most of Trump’s appointments have been ordinary conservative hardliners or ethically-compromised rich people.
But there’s a chance that some of his health care picks could be really interesting.. I’m not talking about Health and Human . Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
Utilitarianism appears to conflict with what we might call "common-sense morality," the view that takes morality to be constituted not by any goal to be pursued but by rules to be followed. The rules of common-sense morality by and large do not posit goals. In my last post I discussed at length the question of rationality. I concluded that contrary to the opinion of behavioral economics, humans do make decisions that they believe to be in their best interests, in my view the correct definition of a rational decision. These video lectures covers utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, social contract theory, egalitarianism, patriotism, deontology, virtue ethics, Rawls’s theory of justice and communitarianism. reproductive rights and the moral status of selling a human life? Lecture Mind your Motive. People have different ideas about.
Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.
Smith published a large body of works throughout his life, beginning with his first book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", written in , and ending with the "Essays on Philosophical Subjects" which was published posthumously in His single most important book, though, was undoubtedly "The Wealth of Nations" (full title "An Inquiry .