The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

/off-topic & longish

I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, so please don't misinterpret the things I'm about to talk about. Regarding your supernatural experiences (which to be perfectly honest IF they do exist, and that is a big if) there are a few problems with them or rather that type of "belief". If it really did happen to you, then it wouldn't be very hard to see why you would believe in religion or be spiritual in a very strong sense of the word (though it depends I suppose on just what you experienced, or what "they" experience).

But, if your faith can be helped along by these type of events, then it would be the type of thing that science should be exploring. I know people will clearly state that you just "can't catch these events", but to be honest, if your body is able to see, hear, smell, or sense it...any number of scientific tests could as well. But, the problem is: when do they happen, how do they happen (by what mechanism, i.e. sound, smell, sight, etc...), and to whom will it occur (and even where will it occur might be a justified question too).

Eventually this should become something, even if on the "fringe" of science or rational belief, should become a real talking point...recognized by all. Simply because, eventually scientists must experience them too, or those with no faith or belief at all...

But, this is why I ask what kind of "event" did you experience?

I suffer from Narcolepsy. With this, I suffer nightly from huge attacks (around 3-15) sleep paralysis events. These events come in ALL sorts of flavors, and since it is from Narcolepsy it doesn't necessarily have to happen at night--like ghosts, or alien abductions (I mean, is it not a good question to wonder why these things almost always happen at night--oh, and the animals don't seem to be involved too much in this stuff for some reason as well). I also (and this is the real winner right here) suffer from, more or less, permanent bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations (typically they happen just as you are about to fall asleep or as you are waking up--with me, they can occur as soon as I'm getting tired). I also have severe Sleep Apnea, just to make all of this more "grandiose"...

Sleep Paralysis is something that was reported constantly even in the Middle Ages; a great painting named "The Nightmare" depicts someone that is actually going through one of these events. This is the actual foundation for succubi, demons, and even angels that visit people in their sleep--these people will feel unbelievable things, things you simply do NOT feel in normal day life...thus many believe a supernatural event has just occurred. The first one I had was when I was just waking up, for some reason I was petrified, couldn't move (and barely breath). Then I looked around my room. It was early morning so I could see in my room, in the corner of my room sat a dark humanoid "solid" shadow. From it emanated a feeling of pure, utter evil (which is were you get a supernatural feeling to this; because for one you do not see "humanoid shadows", nor is it possible to "feel" evil). Eventually I snapped myself out of it and later woke up. It left a stark impression upon me. Later my mind figured out somehow that if I relaxed in these moments, it ended immediately--meaning that I started o become somewhat lucid during the majority of these. I remember my friends and family always saying I was weird or that I scared them sometimes, because I would sleep with my eyes opened--well, this is part of that problem (like I said, I could see my room...everything seemed for the most part, real; it's like being awake and partially asleep--in a dream--at the same time).

Onto my real problem: Hypnagogic Hallucinations. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERYONE that believes or rather has experienced ghosts/haunting(s), alien abductions, angels, demons, people yelling outside, dogs barking, your phone ringing when it hasn't, and "you name it, because EVERYTHING can happen in this category"... I suffer from this so much that the things I experience now are just a joke to me. Things grabbing me, my body changing shape (and YES you do "feel" the change), all manner of sounds (which is the most annoying; sometimes it sounds like someone has called my name...so I have to go check, it's very frustrating). Then combine this WITH a Sleep Paralysis event (and trust me, it does happen, but it it rare), you get an epic "light show".

So, this is why I asked you what type of supernatural event did you experience. Because, you may want to remember (this is JUST some things Narcolepsy can cause; other medical issues, medications, etc... can cause the same issues if not worse, more pronounced in certain ways and even causing certain changes in behavior, sensations, and feelings) that just with Narcolepsy I run into these issues--sleeping disorders are possibly responsible for a LARGE assortment of the "supernatural" issues you see out there. Then add in the countless number of other things that also affect our bodies and it isn't far fetched to soon realize that you just may have to hold onto what science has proven--only--or you may get lost.

I cannot say that this is you. I will not either. I don't pretend to know your experiences. But, I can share mine... The first Sleep Paralysis and or Hypnagogic Hallucination (as I have been able to move in a few Sleep Paralysis events...but very rarely; if I can though I move slowly) event I had, believe it or not, was when I was around 8 or 9. I imagined that I woke up in the night, turned and looked under my bed (it was a sleepover, so I was on the floor that night) and I saw a pair of red glowing lights, shaped vaguely like eyes looking at me. I kept looking at it, trying to figure out what it was, but very quickly it "blinked" and I knew it was alive. I was scared enough that I simply turned my back from it and tried to go back to sleep. The fact that I simply just turned my back to it and went back to sleep...is proof that it simply wasn't even real.

Had that BEEN real, I would've jumped up, flipped the light on; told everyone in the room and gotten my parents in the next room... But, it felt extremely real. Even to this day, the only thing that makes me realize it was fake was HOW I handled the situation...that is it. In fact that is usually the best way to tell reality apart from a dream (or hallucinations caused by enhanced REM cycles--REM cycles that start even while you are awake). You simply do not act like yourself in a dream, period.

I'll agree with you otherwise. I was definitely smothered by religion and it "stunted" me. It didn't cause me to hate it as much as many might think, but I became extremely wary of anything to do with it.

what an odd dynamic here on the sift in regards to lantern.

many here (myself included) have seemed to put the mantle of responsibility squarely on lanterns shoulders,as if he represented ALL police....everywhere.

this is not only patently false,it is very unfair.

BUT....

and @lantern53 this is very important you understand this very crucial,pivotal point:

the outrage you see here playing out on the sift in regards to police abuse of power and authority (oftimes directed AT you) comes directly from a perspective on how we all view HOW a true police officer should behave.

we feel (i dont mean to speak for everyone..but im going to anyways) that those in a position of power and authority have to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

why?

because they are in a position of power and authority!!!!

and to abuse that public trust.
be it by the use of violence or intimidation,is the greatest of all betrayals.

so when we see a cop abusing his powers,in whatever capacity,we become outraged and angered.
justifiably so in my opinion.

i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible.

as a police officer you should be the first one condemning those cops who have obviously stepped over the line.
i am willing to be that you have done just that in your time on the force.most cops i know do it that way.
police policing themselves in a roundabout way.

i have full confidence you are good at what you do and have built a skin so thick not much really phases you anymore,but stop defending those cops that are NOT good cops...they are a cancer on your institution and they make those of you who ARE good at what you do treated with suspicion and wariness.

so listen to those here who are telling you how they feel about the bad cops.these are not criticizing you in particular,so dont feel you have to defend every bad cop out there.

so just as you do not represent every cop on the planet,dont allow those bad cops define you.

we are counting on you to be better.

/rant off

@newt boy: Out of curiosity, what jobs (outside of the military) are more dangerous than being a cop? There are certainly hazardous jobs out there, like repairing electric lines, but those are mostly predictable. With sufficient preparation and training, risks can be calculated and minimized. Being a cop, on the other hand, forces you to deal with completely unpredictable situations. A routine traffic stop can be a harmless affair or it can end with you being shot or stabbed to death. Cops bear the burden of risk when dealing with the public. Civilians can generally assume that cops aren't going to try to kill them. Cops can't make that same assumption. Their position of authority and responsibility to enforce the law puts them in an inherently antagonistic position. People don't like being told what to do and they definitely don't like being punished for not doing it. It's no surprise then that cops tend to be wary and defensive when doing their job. Some cops (the minority) simply take this too far and try to neutralize perceived threats before they become actual threats.

The ideal solution is to have all cops wear cameras while on duty. That way, there's objective footage of all their interactions, violent or otherwise. If Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera, the whole Brown debacle could have been avoided or at least minimized.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

The assailant had to run pretty far before he was in pistol range.

If the biker had been more wary, like concealed carry folks are, he'd have rode off in the opposite direction immediately.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/fccs-wheeler-net-neutrality-106465.html?hp=l4 Looks like politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are wary about wading into the tech waters after SOPA. This Wheeler guy may be left holding the bag.

That would be awesome. I wonder if bands are wary about giving up that kinda control?

Minor correction @deathcow: min-etune is not on Gibsons top end (Les Paul customs and so on), but on it's mid range guitars.

Primarily because guitarists paying a lot of money for a guitar are wary of anything that interferes with it.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with it in principle. I'm glad it simply winds the machine heads.

I like that it can learn different tunings (I play a lot in Eb and DADGAD).

I guess it would be useful if you wanted to play a set with songs in different tunings on the one guitar.

I'd be wary of trusting Rand Paul as a so-coined-by-media, 'Libertarian'.His father has distanced himself from him, he used underhanded threat-tactics when questioned by an independent reporter for RT recently(Abby Martin), he's a bought and sold team-player being groomed for yet another puppet-regime primary.
He's seems a solid prick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osg0RYAP2cs

I don't have a problem with GMOs on principal. If we can develop safe disease and insect resistant foods then I'm all for it. It's easy for people in the west to dismiss GMOs and tell people to grow their own veggies, etc. That's a laudable aim, but it's not practical for everyone. Some people work long hours or don't have the space.

That said, I am wary of it being controlled by the likes of Monsanto.

In short, I trust the science, as long as it is conducted rigorously and used ethically. The jury is still out on both those counts.

Back to the video at hand, I find it a bit hypocritical that the U.S. is criticizing the hunt. Yeah, dolphins are cute. The idea of someone killing one is probably uncomfortable to pretty much any culture that hasn't spent centuries eating them. But I think there's a bit of ethnocentricsm going on here.

How many cattle, chicken, and turkeys get slaughtered every day in the U.S. in the most horrible ways--nevermind the horrific conditions most have to endure from birth until death? Where's the international outcry over that?

The primary complaint of this video seems to be that the dolphins die slowly, but the video fails to mention that's only if the procedure is done wrong. It's done that way precisely because Japanese laws require the butchering to be done quickly and when done correctly they die within seconds. I imagine the whales killed by Inuit's in their traditional hunts don't die much quicker (see http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131008/save-whales-inuit-whalers-wary-whaling-commission-quotas for more details).

Basically, while I find the method they use to kill disturbingly inhumane, I also don't see the need for the international community to intervene in the hunt unless it can be shown that the hunt is adversely affecting the population. The primary reason hunting dolphins is stupid is because the meat contains alarmingly high concentrations of mercury which pose a major health risk to humans that habitually eat the meat.

I would have to disagree considering you are simply being given data from one or two of your senses to draw your conclusion however, I can't argue with the passion of your disdain.Also, I'd be wary of throwing a punch at anyone who has the cojones de latón to stage a stunt like this-

I don't think DMT opens a window to god or w/e. These experiences might help you understand that even when your not tripping our perception is full of illusions, from the tricks the brain plays with what you see to the way it fabricates memories. I'm not sure if DMT really dissolves the ego but perhaps it does give you the insight that your world view is a distortion and to be wary of that fact.