Falls in asset prices aren't particularly a big deal. The problem is when bear markets are signalling some kind of economy-wide wobble. Unfortunately, other indicators point in the same direction also.

However, a repeat of 2007-08 is unlikely. Banks are stocked on liquidity, and household debt is not as big a problem as it was back then.

The very fact that you can ask this question unironically is a clear demonstration of the toxic mess that is consequentialist thinking.

Not really; the strongest arguments against this position come from a consequentialist line.

At what point does this obsession with aggregate good preclude slavery, Stalinism, or other collectivist nonsense?

The point where you realise that slavery, Stalinism and collectivist nonsense has been pretty clearly consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

The point I'm making is about operations it may be necessary to conduct on the margins of knowledge, in order to better inform our various decision-making processes.

You are heavily biased bough you have to admit.

In what way?

an equitable justice system failing wouldn't have nearly as severe or irreversible effects on someone as experimentation would.

This is irrelevant, though. I agree that the justice system ought to be reformed, but that's simply because the current system does nothing for aggregate well-being; recidivism, ignorance of mental health issues etc. What is necessary is some kind of incarceration and rehabilitation for offenders, and since such institutions are necessary we are willing to accept a margin of error in its operation.

Experimentation, even if functionally linked to the justice system, is a separate institution. If we have a defined subset of the population who we deem appropriate for experimentation, we should also be willing to tolerate some kind of margin of error regardless. If, for instance, we knew with certainty that of all the experiments conducted only one would be conducted on a wrongly prosecuted person, I think we would both agree that such a cost is worth bearing. So we hit a point where opposition to some margin of error is not, in fact, a moral principle.

This is, of course, all based on the premise that we choose prisoners to perform experiments on.

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 26, 2016, 11:47:23 PM

We seem to broadly accept that animal experimentation is at least permissible morally.

Speak for yourself, Hombre.

I didn't even try to speak for you. You can't deny a total opposition to animal testing is the majority position, or that most people see such a position as irrational.

aren't there already consent-based human testing programs

Which are utterly uninteresting, morally. Which is why I didn't include them.

Well, they aren't totally uninteresting. But pretty much so in light of the topic in the OP.

I feel like my definition of what communism is completely off then.

A polity would be communist if it satisfied a few conditions:

• It lacks a State.
• It lacks money.
• It lacks classes.
• It has a gift economy, with unrestricted access to articles of consumption.

maybe you should consider the value to you as a citizen there is in knowing that even a severe miscarriage of justice won't put you in the hands of some hawk who has a passion for winning, not doing things right.

I don't find these kinds of Rawlsian arguments as convincing as most people do, although I'm not as familiar with Rawls as I should be.

But, it seems to me, if we're willing to accept some margin of error in pretty much any routine government function it's not particularly rational to consider how I would personally like it if I fell into the group poorly done-by due to said errors. It seems aggregate (potential) utility should be the possible metric. If we agree that knowledge-advancing experimentation is necessary for society, and we agree that these experiments will be secretly performed on certain criminals, it should be irrelevant if that margin of error results in innocent casualties (assuming the MoE is within an acceptable range). The experimentation is done both without the public or broader justice system being aware; the possibility of experimentation is a function of human error in the pursuit of an agreed-upon goal, not some kind of punishment for wrongdoing. If we're willing to accept a margin of error in prosecution, I don't see why human experimentation should be any different.

This is a question I've wrestled with for a long time, without ever really coming to a conclusion. The usual paradigm of utility-maximisation seems to not apply here, or at least only apply very messily.

Of course, the entire point of experimentation is the discovery of previously unknown information. Given that constraint, it doesn't seem to be the case that my usual model of thinking about moral questions is all that useful. Which implies I either need to alter the model of come up with a sufficiently reductionist account of my argument that it is internally consistent.

So, removing the obvious barriers to this situation which could be used as justification--consent and majoritarian will--is the secretive and coercive conduction of any kind of experiment (medical, military, whatever) morally permissible? Permissible in only some cases? Morally necessary?

The only responses I have so far involve the inherent worth of human life and the necessity of knowledge-seeking endeavours and the acceptance of risk. The first argument, which is against coercive experimentation, I find utterly unconvincing. We seem to broadly accept that animal experimentation is at least permissible morally, the only answers to which I can see is either to advocate for a complete abolition of animal testing or to argue for some inherent superiority of human beings which universally condemns clandestine and unwilling experimentation. 

The second response justifies human experimentation at least on some level. If your moral basis is rational (as opposed to super-rational, such as religious modes of thinking), then it stands to reason that more information ultimately leads to a superior decision-making process. Therefore, on the margin, human experimentation is almost a necessary bug of advancing the frontiers of knowledge.

or maybe you're just a leftist

i can totally see a right wing nut disagreeing with both of those proposals

The point is that they're poor questions in the determination of somebody's politics.

I agree with both statements narrowly, but the implications of my response to those statements are different to the implications imposed by the creators of the test. I think branded water is a poor reflection of society because it highlights people's stupidity, not because there is necessarily a problem with our means of production to the extent that it influences my political opinions.

As for the second one. Well, yeah. But so what? That broadly comes under fraud, and that's already illegal so I have no idea why my dislike for illegal financial practices to push me leftward. Obviously the creators had something in mind other than simple fraud, at which point I have to think they mean institutions which turn illiquid assets into liquid assets and financial products like collateralisation, securitisation, OTC derivatives etc. But I disagree that these "contribute nothing to society".

What if someones depression came from how life essentially boils down to doing the same thing till you die?

Sounds like endogenous depression.

Neither.

Fuck your dichotomy.

Besides Left/Right and Libertarian/Authoritarian, there seems to be a different divide in politics: that between those who generally support or defend the "establishment", or those who take a more "populist" line against the establishment and positioning themselves as standing for the people.

The populist Left seems to be defined by people like Bernie Sanders, the Corbyn-wing of the Labour party, Michael Moore etc. while the populist Right is defined by the likes of Trump, probably Cruz, the Tea Party and its defunct caucus, UKIP and media outlets like Breitbart. What they have in common is the decrying of 'big institutions', be they banks or governments. Both sides have criticised things like TTIP, both have criticised the involvement of financial institutions and big money in politics, both have criticised the way the government is becoming fundamentally "out-of-touch" with everyday life.

The establishment Left and Right are defined broadly the by the higher-end of the hierarchy of the main political parties in both the U.K. and U.S., and candidates like Clinton, Obama, Romney, Bush, McCain, Kasich, Rubio etc. They tend to take an attitudinally more conservative approach in decrying 'big institutions' and taking a hard-line pro-thebigguysalwaysfuckoverthepeople position.

In terms of users, I'd say Turkey, Flee, Icy and I are more on the side of the establishment. Verbatim, Midget, PSU and Challenger are more notably populist. Haven't really thought about where others fall.

I'm using the terms (pro-)establishment and populist loosely.

#bringbackmitt