“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income”. — Economist Milton Friedman
“I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.”
I guess Milton Friedman has never been married.
Milton’s married (a long, long time too) to Rose. I suspect he regards whatever he buys for Rose to be the near-equivalent of buying for himself.
LOL.
TL is correct, he has been happily married to Rose Friedman, a noted economist in her own right, for more than 68 years (Milton Friedman will be 94 in July). I bet when he buys a gift for her, it certainly is with enough thought as if he was buying the gift for himself…probably one of the reasons why he has been married so long.
No, they obviously have an open marriage - that’s the only way two people can stay together for more than a decade.
Anyway, moving on from this exhilirating, had-me-on-the-edge-of-my-seat quote of the day … I have to comment about one of your del.icio.us links.
You link to an undergraduate essay by Michael Huemer and say: “Aside from leaders of the Democratic party, philosophy and people in general have moved away from the now defunct moral relativism. This is one of the many articles that helped put moral relativism to rest…”
My obvious question: are you trying to be funny? Cause if so, I love you for it.
If you’re going to try and debate relativism, then by all means do it, but linking to some college student’s essay and saying poof the debate has been settled, is silly.
Hey Oso,
I was hoping that link would get your attention. But for the record, I did not link to some college professors essay as proof that the debate has been settled, but instead to link to one of the many articles that helped put moral relativism to rest.
In other words, I took it as a given that moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy, both with the ‘average joe’ on the street, and with academia in general. It is my understanding, supported by philosophy professors, for example here, that even academia itself has abandoned such a bankrupt philosophy.
However, if you still want to debate such an outdated and defunct philosophy, I am game.
Querido, there is nothing to debate. I ask you what is the determinant of any objectivity, you tell me god, I say I don’t believe in god and then we at least take comfort in the fact that we both choose nalgas over tetas.
LOL.
Personally, I agree with you that it ultimately comes down to a choice of moral relativism on the one hand, or belief in God on the other. That is yet one of the many reasons why I am not an atheist.
With that said though, there are many atheists who would disagree with us. Many atheists claim to be atheist and yet also deny moral relativism. How they do so I cannot fully understand, but they certainly present arguments for their case.
Besos
HP, you state:
As an atheist who, like you, thinks that moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy, I’d pose this question:
Don’t you think that it is self-evident (God or no God) that we are all fundamentally equal, and thus, acts such as murder, rape, slavery, etc. are absolutely wrong?
It would be a contradiction to, on one hand, observe that we are fundamentally equal, admit that we all value our own lives, and determine that we have an equal right to live them as we see fit, and, on the other hand, say that acts that violate those basic ideas cannot be judged.
Hey Peter,
Yes, I do agree with that. However, on what grounds does one have to follow those ‘morals’?
In other words, I can see how an atheist discovers right from wrong - you don’t need God to tell you that stealing, murder, rape, and slavery are wrong, you can discover them through reason. It makes sense that right and wrong, good and bad, are right and wrong in themselves, objectively.
But after having discovered these morals, on what grounds does an atheist have to follow them? What gives an atheist the obligation to follow them aside from his/her own personal wishes?
In addition, the problem is much worse for the atheist than I present here for if the world was created by mere chance without an all knowing designer, as the atheist must assume, than on what basis does the atheist have to ascribing intelligence to these moral dictums? If these moral dictums originate from chance, from a random unintelligent creation of the world, why should you choose to follow them? In fact, the logical thing to do in that circumstance would be to not follow them, or atleast ignore them. For example, if I am driving down the street and I see an arrangement of flowers on the floor that read, “Los Angeles Turn Right”, and I have reason to believe that the arrangement was put there by an intelligent source (another human being, city worker, etc) with the intention of giving me proper information, than the intelligent thing to do (assuming LA was my destination) would be to turn right. However, if I had reason to believe that the flower arrangement was ordered in that way by mere chance (rain the previous day, whatever) , than the intelligent thing to do would be to ignore them, to merely see them as a cool random creation of the world, but nothing more - certainly not to obey their instructions.
Atheism then, is left with a system that can identify moral dictums, but is left with no reason - indeed a strong reason not - to follow them.
I too choose nalgas over tetas. Yes, this is the only part of the thread that resonates with me.
Hey, I too chooose nalgas over tetas, and I am not a moral relativist. You see, there is common ground. LOL.
Are nalgas and tetas mutually exclusive or something? ‘Cause I’ve never seen it that way.
HP, why are all the haterific postings about professors lately? I don’t get it. My hate docket is full at the moment. I don’t feel I can add professors to the list of things that are destroying America.
Peace in your hood.
El Profe,
Nalgas are definitely not mutually exclusive from tetas, and in a perfect world, both would come together. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and it has been my experience atleast, that when there is one, the other is lacking, hence the age old question that separates one group of men from the other: tetas or nalgas? LOL
On the serious side, no special reason for the professor bashing, I just thought the article was good and wanted to share it with others. Although I do believe that while professors are not people to be added to the hate list, there is such a thing as relying on them and their opinions too much. That’s all.