>Do you agree with Hedonism? Is it right?
>Psychological Hedonism says everyone is motivated by their search for pleasure. Ethical Hedonism says everyone ought to seek pleasure, for it is the only thing worth having.
Do you agree?
>Psychological Hedonism says everyone is motivated by their search for pleasure. Ethical Hedonism says everyone ought to seek pleasure, for it is the only thing worth having.
Do you agree?
>We’ve talked before about the Austerity-Stimulus debate, but a lot of it lies in the sustainability of our debts. According to economists D.Miles & A.Scott:
>
I know this picture has little relevance but I couldn’t resist putting it up. You’ve got to give credit to a good advert once in a while.
>
>
>Should markets be unregulated? Should we be able to sell drugs, guns, ourselves, part of ourselves like organs, and various other things likely to grab press attention?
Should markets be heavily regulated? Where is the limit for regulation and where should it come from? Should all regulation be carried out by the state?
>I’ve deliberately made this question open to interpretation so make of it what you will. But to start the discussion, global capital flows were larger as a percentage of GDP at the end of the nineteenth century (i.e. when the European Empires covered about 3/4 of the globe) than today, and some critics talk of “Americanisation” as synonomous with globalisation.
>Technological developers and workers are predicting machines will be as intellectually capable as apes by the end of the century, and also able to feel and empaphize as we do. Suppose a situation came to be where machines were more intelligent than us, and just as life like in that they felt emotions as we do. Would you accord them equal rights? If we accorded them equal rights based on our similarities then why do we have greater rights than apes? If not then how do we justify our ‘human rights’ being solely available to humans?
>