Coronavirus

[Serial_Apologist]

... no. Philosophers debate it, but it seems impossible to derive "ought" from "is"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io

,

Dave (above) was saying in no uncertain terms that it is wrong to claim that politicians have responsibilities when they are shown not to exercise them. I was thinking along lines of having responsibility as being in itself an ought, eg we all have responsibility for separating recyclable from non-recyclable rubbish when disposing thereof. Being responsible for, or having responsibility for, doesn't necessarily mean responsibility is being exercised.

[french frank]

Dave (above) was saying in no uncertain terms that it is wrong to claim that politicians have responsibilities when they are shown not to exercise them. I was thinking along lines of having responsibility as being in itself an ought, eg we all have responsibility for separating recyclable from non-recyclable rubbish when disposing thereof. Being responsible for, or having responsibility for, doesn't necessarily mean responsibility is being exercised.

Yes, my reading. We crossed last time. It's not the same as whether someone accepts the responsibilty and acts accordingly.

[vinteuil]

Dave (above) was saying in no uncertain terms that it is wrong to claim that politicians have responsibilities when they are shown not to exercise them. I was thinking along lines of having responsibility as being in itself an ought, eg we all have responsibility for separating recyclable from non-recyclable rubbish when disposing thereof. Being responsible for, or having responsibility for, doesn't necessarily mean responsibility is being exercised.

... this then is a different question - you are claiming as a premise that "we have responsibilities" (ie an ought) and then moving on to "we should act on those responsibilities". Not the same as -

Do I have, or should I have responsibilities?

.

[Serial_Apologist]

... this then is a different question - you are claiming as a premise that "we have responsibilities" (ie an ought) and then moving on to "we should act on those responsibilities". Not the same as -



.

That's true.

[french frank]

... this then is a different question - you are claiming as a premise that "we have responsibilities" (ie an ought) and then moving on to "we should act on those responsibilities". Not the same as -

Yes, but the original claim in the article was that: "Politicians have a responsibility to consider not just whether what they’re saying is credible but also how their words will be understood."

Dave2002's bold - and that is what he described as "utter tosh". Given the particular context (that politicians have a 'responsibiltiy' (duty?) to consider the effect their words will have on a public which is only listening with half an ear (half a brain?), was that assertion utter tosh?

[antongould]

We are told we are at a critical time - everything hinges on the relationship between new cases and new hospitalisations ….. why then on today’s figures are we given new cases on 8th June and hospitalisations on 2nd June ….. this is not a one off - the latter figure is sometimes not updated for days at a time. Then, as I am grumpy, why are we more or less told that the figures reported at weekends and bank holidays cannot be relied on ….. take the zero deaths day …… I worked for a year for the man about to take over from Warren Buffet and he ran everything on daily figures and they had to be correct for each day be it Sunday, Bank Holiday Monday or there had been a flood …. Surely for something as vital to the nation as the real state of COVID we should do the same ….

[Serial_Apologist]

We are told we are at a critical time - everything hinges on the relationship between new cases and new hospitalisations ….. why then on today’s figures are we given new cases on 8th June and hospitalisations on 2nd June ….. this is not a one off - the latter figure is sometimes not updated for days at a time. Then, as I am grumpy, why are we more or less told that the figures reported at weekends and bank holidays cannot be relied on ….. take the zero deaths day …… I worked for a year for the man about to take over from Warren Buffet and he ran everything on daily figures and they had to be correct for each day be it Sunday, Bank Holiday Monday or there had been a flood …. Surely for something as vital to the nation as the real state of COVID we should do the same ….

One would have thought so - well said, anton.

[french frank]

One would have thought so - well said, anton.

Haven't seen johnb for three weeks. He was the one who knew what we were being told and what we weren't.

We are told daily how many are actually in hospital, up to 6 June, which seems to show a 6.5% rise on a week ago.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

Click on data.

[Dave2002]

Of course it does. My (reconsidered but repeated here) response to Dave2002 was:


Not actually tosh, just the somewhat weird (to me) way you interpret the English Language "Politicians have a responsibility to … " means "It is the responsibilty of politicians to". Whether they live up to their responsibilties is a quite different matter.

We seem here to disagree about linguistics and semantics. In this case it seems to be about the "ownership" of responsibilities. We can try to project such ownership on to politicians, but if they don't recognise that, then surely they don't own (or have) responsiblity. I would seriously question your rewriting of the sentence.

[Serial_Apologist]

We seem here to disagree about linguistics and semantics. In this case it seems to be about the "ownership" of responsibilities. We can try to project such ownership on to politicians, but if they don't recognise that, then surely they don't own (or have) responsiblity. I would seriously question your rewriting of the sentence.

I think most politicians do recognise their responsibilities; either they have wrong policies or enough of the electorate aren't knowlegeable enough to vote for somebody different.

[french frank]

We seem here to disagree about linguistics and semantics. In this case it seems to be about the "ownership" of responsibilities. We can try to project such ownership on to politicians, but if they don't recognise that, then surely they don't own (or have) responsiblity. I would seriously question your rewriting of the sentence.

And I would flatly disagree with you. If you check the OED definition* of 'responsibilty' (i.e. how the term is used) it implies such concepts as 'obligation' and 'duty'. The fact that an individual doesn't recognise his or her responsibility doesn't alter the fact one whit, iota or scintilla that the office or position they occupy carries such a responsibility.

There are, however, the phrases to 'take responsibility' (after the event) and to 'have responsibility' (before the action). I can't see how you conclude that this is about the 'ownership' of responsibility, an expression I admit I don't understand.

* The state or fact of being in charge of or of having a duty towards a person or thing; obligation.

* The fact of having a duty to do something

[Serial_Apologist]

And I would flatly disagree with you. If you check the OED definition* of 'responsibilty' (i.e. how the term is used) it implies such concepts as 'obligation' and 'duty'. The fact that an individual doesn't recognise his or her responsibility doesn't alter the fact one whit, iota or scintilla that the office they occupy carries such a responsibility.

There are, however, the phrases to 'take responsibility' (after the event) and to 'have responsibility' (before the action). I can't see how you conclude that this is about the 'ownership' of responsibility, an expression I admit I don't understand.

* The state or fact of being in charge of or of having a duty towards a person or thing; obligation.

* The fact of having a duty to do something

"Ownership" in this context seems to be the idea of owning up to something, with a connection being established between admission and being in possession of that to which one admits: ownership being synonymous with having it in one's power to do something about what one is responsible for, because it is, as it were, in one's province. If I damage an item on loan to me I am in effect in temporary ownership of it, it has been given to me for a period of time. That's the nearest explanation I can come up with!

[Dave2002]

"Ownership" in this context seems to be the idea of owning up to something, with a connection being established between admission and being in possession of that to which one admits: ownership being synonymous with having it in one's power to do something about what one is responsible for, because it is, as it were, in one's province. If I damage an item on loan to me I am in effect in temporary ownership of it, it has been given to me for a period of time. That's the nearest explanation I can come up with!

That's not quite what I meant by "ownership". I'm still not in anything like full agreement with ff on this issue of responsibility. We seem to be living in times when some people don't act responsibly, nor do they aparently really accept responsibility for their lack of attention or indifference. They "should" or "ought to" in an ideal world, but they don't.

[french frank]

That's not quite what I meant by "ownership". I'm still not in anything like full agreement with ff on this issue of responsibility. We seem to be living in times when some people don't act responsibly, nor do they aparently really accept responsibility for their lack of attention or indifference. They "should" or "ought to" in an ideal world, but they don't.

Where the disagreement comes seems to be that you are talking about politicians as individuals (and how they actually behave), rather than politicians as a class, vis-à-vis their legal/moral duties/responsibilities. In the original article, what you wrote off as "utter tosh" was not referring to how such people do behave but their 'responsibilities' (obligations, duties) as politicians. Namely what they ought to do.

"Politicians have a responsibility to consider not just whether what they’re saying is credible, but also how their words will be understood" simply means politicians should act responsibly. I don't think that's utter tosh. Ideally, everyone should act responsibly

Back to coronavirus: I'm not quite sure how the assertion that about 80% of the population now has antibodies squares with the rise in new infections: Bristol, for example had its highest total of new case for 10 weeks - and the trend is up (and apparently gathering pace), whereas 10 weeks ago the trend was down.

[Bryn]

Where the disagreement comes seems to be that you are talking about politicians as individuals (and how they actually behave), rather than politicians as a class, vis-à-vis their legal/moral duties/responsibilities. In the original article, what you wrote off as "utter tosh" was not referring to how such people do behave but their 'responsibilities' (obligations, duties) as politicians. Namely what they ought to do.

"Politicians have a responsibility to consider not just whether what they’re saying is credible, but also how their words will be understood" simply means politicians should act responsibly. I don't think that's utter tosh. Ideally, everyone should act responsibly

Back to coronavirus: I'm not quite sure how the assertion that about 80% of the population now has antibodies squares with the rise in new infections: Bristol, for example had its highest total of new case for 10 weeks - and the trend is up (and apparently gathering pace), whereas 10 weeks ago the trend was down.

Having antibodies does not preclude infection. It may limit infection and/or its severity.