Absolutely. And the thing is, skills aren't a linear path. For example you might think that you'd go into engineering work and you would never have to be an artist, but an excellent engineer has to learn how to connect with non-engineers. You can be an absolute God at converting a building design into mathematical models that you put into the LaPlace domain in order to determine whether resonance is it will cause a building to eventually fall over, but if you can't explain to people exactly why they should be listening to you, it doesn't matter if you're right.
In Plato's Republic they talk about how a person with one skill is better than someone with many skills, but often skills synergize and you can be much better with multiple skills at a lower level than if your skill at a specific thing is much higher but exclusive.
In Plato's Republic they talk about how a person with one skill is better than someone with many skills, but often skills synergize and you can be much better with multiple skills at a lower level than if your skill at a specific thing is much higher but exclusive.
You can say that, but that strikes to the core of what I've been saying.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
My interpretation is that morality is the specific code of rules you live by, where ethics is more intellectualized and can represent principles for deriving morality but not necessarily morality itself.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
This reminds me of our earlier discussion about the family and I was talking about men becoming "worthy" of having a family.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
I know that at 30 (a decade ago, incidentally) I really ended up taking stock of what I'd achieved in my life. Thankfully I'd had some good luck and worked hard and could say I was proud of what I'd achieved, but a lot of people hit 30 and it was a reality check that they'd wasted that decade.
One reason why I wrote the chapter of The Graysonian Ethic called "Think ahead" where I talk about how each decade of life might go based on two different paths you decide to walk is to show that choices matter a lot, and you might not care when you're young but you will someday care a lot about those choices.
One reason why I wrote the chapter of The Graysonian Ethic called "Think ahead" where I talk about how each decade of life might go based on two different paths you decide to walk is to show that choices matter a lot, and you might not care when you're young but you will someday care a lot about those choices.
Krita is free and open source and has a stablediffusion plugin so you can run a self-hosted AI image generator. It's as good as anything I've seen online and doesn't have stupid word limitations like many of the sites I've seen.
Look here jack, I'll take you behind the woodshed and tell you stories about having hairy legs!
vxworks isn't open source at all, and a lot of the stuff it runs on wouldn't even be considered a computer by anyone but specialists. For example, it runs a lot of grid equipment and it's at the core of many PLCs.
That's a pretty useful statement if the difference is meaningful to you.
I'll tell you, if I'm building something with unistrut that needs to be somewhat corrosion resistant, I'd choose aluminium because it's lighter than stainless steel.
I'll tell you, if I'm building something with unistrut that needs to be somewhat corrosion resistant, I'd choose aluminium because it's lighter than stainless steel.
He'll find and jail as many Trump supporters as required to make the attacks in Iraq stop.
In 2008, I came up with a concept of a "deregulatory bubble and bust". It applies to anything that was held down by a rule for a long time.
The idea goes like this:
1. Something is a bad idea. Everyone knows it's a bad idea.
2. Someone makes the bad idea against the rules.
3. People stop not doing the bad idea because it's a bad idea and start not doing the bad idea because it's against the rules.
4. Someone goes "Why do we have this rule?"
5. The rule is repealed.
6. Everyone does the thing that's a bad idea since nobody remembers it's a bad idea and only didn't do it because it was against the rules.
7. For a short time, everyone gets the positive parts of doing the bad idea, so more people do it thinking it's a good idea.
8. The bad consequences of doing a bad idea happen to everyone at once, causing problems everywhere the rule existed
9. People end up learning the bad idea is a bad idea and stop doing it because it's a bad idea again.
I think we're at step 9 with respect to many parts of the sexual revolution. Gen Z is having less sex than most generations before them, and in part it's because it turns out sex is dangerous -- it isn't a magical purse filled with gold coins that can be thrown out, there's a cost and people have realized that so there's a return to more care and less risk taking.
So all this really seems like hopping on a bandwagon after it's already reached its destination.
The idea goes like this:
1. Something is a bad idea. Everyone knows it's a bad idea.
2. Someone makes the bad idea against the rules.
3. People stop not doing the bad idea because it's a bad idea and start not doing the bad idea because it's against the rules.
4. Someone goes "Why do we have this rule?"
5. The rule is repealed.
6. Everyone does the thing that's a bad idea since nobody remembers it's a bad idea and only didn't do it because it was against the rules.
7. For a short time, everyone gets the positive parts of doing the bad idea, so more people do it thinking it's a good idea.
8. The bad consequences of doing a bad idea happen to everyone at once, causing problems everywhere the rule existed
9. People end up learning the bad idea is a bad idea and stop doing it because it's a bad idea again.
I think we're at step 9 with respect to many parts of the sexual revolution. Gen Z is having less sex than most generations before them, and in part it's because it turns out sex is dangerous -- it isn't a magical purse filled with gold coins that can be thrown out, there's a cost and people have realized that so there's a return to more care and less risk taking.
So all this really seems like hopping on a bandwagon after it's already reached its destination.
Yeah, I understand. It's ultimately their choices how they want to run their instances, but there's a reason why I nonetheless advocate people not to mindlessly follow stupid lists made by people they don't even know.
I added myself to fediblock by calling the maintainers nazi gestapo repeatedly and demanding I be added to it, so when people block me assuming that the people who made the list must be good and the people on the list must be bad, they're following the orders of one of the people they think are so bad they must silence the entire instance at the admin level.
You might think I like being blocked based on that action, but in reality it's an action I took because I oppose the whole cliquey system they've created.
I added myself to fediblock by calling the maintainers nazi gestapo repeatedly and demanding I be added to it, so when people block me assuming that the people who made the list must be good and the people on the list must be bad, they're following the orders of one of the people they think are so bad they must silence the entire instance at the admin level.
You might think I like being blocked based on that action, but in reality it's an action I took because I oppose the whole cliquey system they've created.
If you end up on one of those nazi gestapo's lists, then consider yourself part of the fediverse that's fun and cool.