Why don't you talk about the economy vs security? I wonder what you rather have? A better economy or better security? Think of the world wars, the Alqueda, Taliban, Hamas, and terrorists around the world? The victims' lives are like living hell! They cannot enjoy a better economic life because of their insecure environment. Economic freedom is not worth it, if you do not have security to enjoy it.
The economy is a medium for security and freedom, so I use it in that way. Moreover, economy is not in conflict with security, thus I cannot comment on it. It is indirectly, as it fluctuates because the amount of freedom fluctuates.
Which would I rather have, a better economy or an overbearing security? I would rather have the economy as it is an indicator for the level of freedom.
You misunderstand how I am using the word "security", by the way. It means more than just military and law.
Those are merely ways to provide security. Security is merely the inability for something to be harmed. This can extend to a great many things. In the case of the economy, the number is enormous. Countless perhaps.
In the case of the Middle Eastern affairs you presented, it is likely the economy was bad before the war because of too much security and during the war because of too little security.
And yes, I agree that freedom is useless without a measure of security. So too is security useless without a measure of freedom. That is what I am saying in this video, really, that the happy spot lies somewhere in the middle, because overbearing freedom and security are mutually harmful to the economy.
If I came across as a philosopher of ethics, then I apologize. It isn't the area of philosophy I enjoy. That, among other reasons, is why I say I am not a philosopher of ethics. Of course I am in some sense, as we all are. But I meant to merely portray what is and not what should be.
Moreover, the derivation of this all was taken from a different branch of philosophy than ethics. So, if I might ask, where did you get that impression from?
No need to apologize. Ethics is my favorite branch of philosophy, so perhaps I tend to see what I wish.
Nevertheless, I don't think I'd be mistaken in describing freedom as within the domain of ethical philosophy. Furthermore, your references to market regulation (by the CEOs, no less)naturally entails ethics.
Again, it is likely the filter on my own eyes, but as you yourself have stated, we are all ethical philosophers in some sense.
Freedom is within the domain of ethics when a certain context is met. However, that context would be one of 'what should be' whereas the context here, or at least the context I meant to give, is one of 'what is'. I say nothing directly about if freedom and security are good or bad. I do probably imply it with connotation albeit not intentionally. That said, it is quite likely that the next area of conversation on this matter would be one of 'what should be', but that isn't this video.
Fair enough. This most likely is, then, my eyes finding what they wish to see. I cannot bear witness to 'what is' without wanting very badly to rush off yo 'what should be.'
I look forward to more of your videos. I am also hoping for a thorough response to the question you posed to ProfMTH.
Why don't you talk about the economy vs security? I wonder what you rather have? A better economy or better security? Think of the world wars, the Alqueda, Taliban, Hamas, and terrorists around the world? The victims' lives are like living hell! They cannot enjoy a better economic life because of their insecure environment. Economic freedom is not worth it, if you do not have security to enjoy it.
tweezwanen 3 years ago
The economy is a medium for security and freedom, so I use it in that way. Moreover, economy is not in conflict with security, thus I cannot comment on it. It is indirectly, as it fluctuates because the amount of freedom fluctuates.
Which would I rather have, a better economy or an overbearing security? I would rather have the economy as it is an indicator for the level of freedom.
You misunderstand how I am using the word "security", by the way. It means more than just military and law.
Phaai 3 years ago
Those are merely ways to provide security. Security is merely the inability for something to be harmed. This can extend to a great many things. In the case of the economy, the number is enormous. Countless perhaps.
In the case of the Middle Eastern affairs you presented, it is likely the economy was bad before the war because of too much security and during the war because of too little security.
Phaai 3 years ago
And yes, I agree that freedom is useless without a measure of security. So too is security useless without a measure of freedom. That is what I am saying in this video, really, that the happy spot lies somewhere in the middle, because overbearing freedom and security are mutually harmful to the economy.
Phaai 3 years ago
How can you say that you are not a philosopher of ethics? It sounds to me like you have a mind attuned to philosophical, ethical arguments.
NYCFin 3 years ago
If I came across as a philosopher of ethics, then I apologize. It isn't the area of philosophy I enjoy. That, among other reasons, is why I say I am not a philosopher of ethics. Of course I am in some sense, as we all are. But I meant to merely portray what is and not what should be.
Moreover, the derivation of this all was taken from a different branch of philosophy than ethics. So, if I might ask, where did you get that impression from?
Phaai 3 years ago
No need to apologize. Ethics is my favorite branch of philosophy, so perhaps I tend to see what I wish.
Nevertheless, I don't think I'd be mistaken in describing freedom as within the domain of ethical philosophy. Furthermore, your references to market regulation (by the CEOs, no less)naturally entails ethics.
Again, it is likely the filter on my own eyes, but as you yourself have stated, we are all ethical philosophers in some sense.
NYCFin 3 years ago
Freedom is within the domain of ethics when a certain context is met. However, that context would be one of 'what should be' whereas the context here, or at least the context I meant to give, is one of 'what is'. I say nothing directly about if freedom and security are good or bad. I do probably imply it with connotation albeit not intentionally. That said, it is quite likely that the next area of conversation on this matter would be one of 'what should be', but that isn't this video.
Phaai 3 years ago
Fair enough. This most likely is, then, my eyes finding what they wish to see. I cannot bear witness to 'what is' without wanting very badly to rush off yo 'what should be.'
I look forward to more of your videos. I am also hoping for a thorough response to the question you posed to ProfMTH.
NYCFin 3 years ago