[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I just did answer your question, it wasn't much of a question though...just hyperbole, like i said.

Oh everything is a chain now, when I was 21 I talked to a realtor and landlord, now I talk to a sells person at a front desk

Yes, you are right. I own several rental houses myself (not in New Jersey). Rents are increasing in my area too. If I have a good renter, I try not to increase his/her rent or, if I do, I only do so gradually, even if this means getting below-market rates. But, when someone moves out, I charge market rates to the next renter. This makes sense ethically (I don't want to price anyone out of his/her house if I can avoid it) and business-wise (a below-market renter who pays his/her rent every month is better than taking a risk on a new renter that might not be a reliable payer). The problem is, many rental properties are owned by large corporations (hedge funds, etc.), that prioritize ROI over all else.

hmm, I am skeptical, I mean we dont lack really inspiring moral people, yet very few people are actually inspired to behave like Jesus, Buddha, Mandela, Dhalai Lama, etc.

We may admire them, but its a lot harder to BE like them, they are unique individuals that most people cant copy, because most people are just not wired to be that "moral".

Yikes that is some terrible science

It is but I think the agency of the landlords can still be at play; they do not have to price out their tenants, but because a fatter cow has hit the market they cooked Besty. Back to my original thought: is it the common man’s fault for not having the money, or the fact a class can just change the rules in a year and basically banish them from their homes.

I think you hit upon a big part of the problem when you said "a New Yorker will pay it if a Jersey citizen won't". Your proximity to NYC and the high cost of rentals in NYC is means that Jersey citizens are competing with NYC residents for housing, and this drives prices up.

I wonder if the pandemic and so many business allowing employees to work from home increased the number of people who work in NYC who were willing to move to New Jersey in order to save money on housing. This would have caused an increase in demand for rentals in New Jersey and resulted in higher rental fees.

Sure, just like how the sun revolved around the earth. After all, 'reality' and history told us that was true too.

Its a special kind of hubris to just decide that we know everything about anything.

I personally believe in extended mind theory. I would consider your distance to me the only real thing that prevents your mind from not being accessible to me. But the people around me they go have their own life experience, and then I probe them for their perspective when I require it. Sure I don’t have access to their entire mind, just like I don’t have access to the entire internet (for example, it would be impossible for me to watch every YouTube video) yet I can still answer virtually any question I have through researching via this extended mind. Your personal thoughts like what constitute your identity or your feelings towards a girl aren’t really useful to me, so it’s not so bad if they get filtered before reaching the societal mind. But the people around me I would certainly consider their minds, at least what they are willing to communicate to me, as an accessible part of my own mind. But that muddies the boundaries for my self concept. But my self concept still remains, whether it’s boundaries are muddied or not, I still will use terms like me and I, and that is just a concrete fact that this mental system exists. The illusion is that these boundaries must be set where we have traditionally set them. I am of the opinion I have responsibility to maintain not only my own life, but the life of the people I care about. If my best friend were to die, it would genuinely feel like a part of my own self died; like I lost a piece of my own mind. When I dropped my phone in a lake while kayaking, I lost a part of my mind, many ideas I chose to store on it rather than in my brain or on the internet, and now they’re gone.

>I think that the illusion comes from the fact that you are not actually separate from your environment

It's not clear to me why that should be an illusion, I don't see why individuation can't exist via certain boundary conditions, for example I can't access your mind, you can't access my mind, we're located in different spatial coordinates etc. Unless there's some ultimate "one" solipsistic mind which we are all fragments of, I don't see anything much illusory regarding individuation.

Yeah, I agree with this take. The self is just a mental conception that is used by the human animal to set a boundary between what he is directly responsible for and what is the outside world. While the self is a real, definite thing that all humans construct, I think that the illusion comes from the fact that you are not actually separate from your environment, yet it is optimal to operate as if that is the case for survival.

You seem to redefine free will here. Even a ‘weighted calculation’ wouldn’t amount to free will. That’s just another bias our brains would use when making calculations. Free will would require that against all odds, you still possess the ability of choosing your future out of multiple possible futures. That the responsibility of the situation you’re in lies mostly on yourself. That at any point in your life, you could have made a decision differently via unbound will. If you replayed a choice in your life like chocolate vs white milk at lunch, say you chose chocolate, determinism would say that you could replay infinite times and you would choose chocolate every time. With your suggestion of the weighted calculations based one random quantum probability, if replayed, and the quantum probability was like 70% odds chocolate, 25% odds white, 3% odds strawberry, and 2% you don’t take a milk, then when replayed an infinite amount of times over, your behavior would match that spread. Where is the free will in that? It happened according to a mathematical function that existed well before and after your existence. Just laws of a universe much bigger than the individual self.

I am a gay man and I live in a muslim country where it is illegal and punished. If I had to choose, what should I wish for, that my people would share my values, or that suddenly the laws and ethics of my county allow for differences in values?

Right now I would choose the former as it would surely make me happier. I would be happier because on top of not having to hide, I would feel closer to my family, friends, and fellow countrymen. It is more important to me to share values with people than to be permitted to have different ones, as it seems to me more like a compromise than an ideal.

A difference in core values. Not everyone's situation is best suited for one ethical theory. It may be that you live in inhospitable conditions, requiring one to be unethical to survive and thrive.

Conflict allows for one to express their individualality and identity. Ethics and morals allow for violence as well, punishing the unruly. Anything can be ideal.

1. Yeah one isn’t a factor at all, they constantly destroying greeny to build new apartments.

2. We are talking a 3 year jump

3. I don’t think taxes went up that much like at all

Most of it is just landlords hearing inflation in the news and raising rent just because. It’s been happening but post covid they are just doing what they want be damned who can afford it because a New Yorker will pay it if a Jersey citizen won’t

[removed]

I agree that there is no universal moral truth.

I heard once the story that Moses went down with the ten commandments and when he saw that the Isrealites worshipped a golden cow, he destroyed the stone tablets out of anger. Then he wrote down the ten commandments again, but slightly differently.

I don't know if that's true. He definitely destroyed the tablets once. It was surprisingly difficult to find the respective parts in the bible - I'm going to try again. The story might very well be not true!

The point is: Moral laws only matter if people know them and agree with them, so in the end what people think is the only thing that matters.

That's not the intentended meaning by the bible passages, they were probably just written by different people, or the author has forgotten what he has written the first time.

Edit: The relevant section is Exodus 34. God says that he will write the same words as on the first tablet. Then he goes on to state some commandments, which aren't the classical "10 commandments" but it's not clear to me which of them will go on the stone tablets or whether they are maybe just some additions that are not important enough to be written in stone.

The bible is not important to my point though - only subjective morals matter.

I feel the word 'moral' is a trap here. I feel like we can sub in the term 'pro-social- to make it more objective; as in 'behaving pro-socially leads to an increased likelihood that others will behave pro-socially as well.'

When we talk about ethical thought experiments like, would you take the organs out of a living person, to save the lives of five other people, the fact that in daily-life situations most people agree and in thought experiment situations there is disagreement and small changes make a big difference could be explained by the idea that human moral intuition is not based on a few ground pricinciples, like "don't murder" or "maximize happiness", but instead on many ideas, formed in practical daily life.

That's one critique of ethical thought experiments: They presuppose there is an elegant set of a few universal moral ground-laws and those moral axioms are connected to moral intuition.

Definately, but are we sure that dividing every answer in two version is not more adequate?

(Math is already showing this in a lot of ways)

Take the question: “is it okay to hide the truth?”

Imagine a young child being brought up by a widow. It would be significantly impactful to share said truth about the death of the father with the child so young in their life. It would be morally more acceptable to hide the bitterness in this truth from the child untill it is ready.

Now imagine that your best friend saw your partner cheat, and did not tell you about it. Years go on and once you find out about it the entire house of cards collapses.

I think to truthfully say whether answers are of dichotomous nature, we must first answer whether the people we become as we mature are truly us, because they often answer very different to questions than te people we were. While children are individuals, adults are far more cooperative and considerate.

So, what is an individual? Is it defined by who we are becoming as a species, or the way people are born? I think its the nature of how this development expresses itself which shows one of the most troubling characteristics of a human, to sacrifice who you are means to be able to permanently lie to yourself. How is then another adult on this page viable to discuss anything?

Also ”demographics” refers to a whole lot of other factors than race, although for Americans it’s usually the number one statistic of interest.