I was welcoming Mizz. She must be a Jew as I am. Unless she is simply fascinated by the Star of David. Again, I must not understand how cheaply made goods ties in with feeding the poor, charity, etc... unless you are implying that manufacturers are stealing from the consumer with cheaply manufactured products, that the retailers are supporting this theft by supplying these products; therefore, consumer theft is justified to somehow equalize the loss.
I cannot see how so many products yield so much loss as to warrant so much theft. Or, if it is true that these products are so defective that people should exact reward for all of the product deficiency, then perhaps more people should be stealing than are stealing.
Most manufacturers and most retailers, however, tend to have methods of product return for money refund without the consumer having to resort to theft.
Then there is that old-fashioned thing called the garage sale. There are just too many other options to which one can resort before one must resort to theft.
if the "research and development" stages of product production were done for free by the people who did the research and development-
would things like brand new perscription pills cost an arm and a leg?
afterall, the ingredients are taken from the earth- and compiled.
the reason it costs is because no one cares for delayed gratification? (the advancement of our race as a whole past our wonderful capitalistic society)
"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."
I don't pretend to know why the drug companies charge so much money for prescription drugs, or even know for certain that all drugs are derived from organic matter. I think since prescription drugs are chemically derived you have this notion that all chemically derived drugs are also organically derived. I don't think that's the case. Of all things that should be socialized, i believe all things healthcare related, to include prescription drug manufacturing and sales should be. Otherwise, socialism can be compatible with principles of justice such as equal rights and equal liberties and fair and equal opportunities without utilitarianism, but that paradigm tends not to be the case.
I'm glad you're around giving me argument fodder because I'm outta school for Thanksgiving break and I have a lot of time to kill. What better way to kill it than by arguing philosophy?
So...you've got all these folks in the pill industry that may or may not be doing humanity any good, but they're making a lot of money doing it. John Rawls might say that if the pill industry provides jobs to people who have always wanted to work in that industry, those jobs are fulfilling to those people, that industry is legal, the jobs are ethical, and the people are law abiding and ethical, then the pill industry is a just industry. Rawlsian philosophy is not meant to account for the ramifications of the things that are just. Some things that are fair can be just, but it is not necessarily the case that the things that are just are also fair.
I think your talking about the concept of can implies ought. If I can do something then I ought to do something. The converse necessarily holds true, of course. Just because I have the power to invade Iraq does not mean I ought to invade Iraq.
Laws, rules, regulations, organizing conduct must tell people what they can do, not what cannot be done. Further, these laws, rules, regulations, are acceptable only if it is generally believed that they can be followed and obeyed. (Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, p 208. Harvard, 1999.)
i am speaking of the way things are- the normally accepted function of our world as a whole (our world as it is perceived the can's and the can not's also but mainly the way things are
- 