The original article post for this discussion is here.
—they are lacking a strict thinking process
—i agree with you and I also think this is true of americans
Imagine that we’re distributing flutes throughout Taiwan. Who should get the best flutes? How should we decide?
—I think we should have a lottery, and the winners can do what they want with the flutes.
—I think I will give flutes to who performs on the flute well, but cannot afford a good flute.
—I agree with her. we should have a competition to predict the winner to get the best flute, because the best flute should go to the best player.
—I agree with the three of you but I think we have to think about the people who really need these instruments. because for me, because if someone gave me a flute it’s basically garbage, I don’t need it because I don’t play. so I think maybe we can just open a vote, for people to say, for the people who want this instrument, and we choose randomly from this pool of applicants.
—that’s an interesting compromise.
—Now we all have to say why.
—My proposal is because it takes the least time and resources to distribute, and I figure they’ll end up in the right hands anyways, but I can’t prove that. Mine is the serendipity approach.
—that’s the name of a movie, a romantic movie.
—oh cool!
—what I’m thinking is, this best flute is deserved by who can utilize its contribution the most. however, someone who can play flute very well, maybe very wealthy, and they can buy flutes by themselves, so I add another criteria that it’s for those who cannot afford flutes. because those poor people maybe cannot be a good musician without a good flute.
—it’s true, more for violins than flutes, but it’s true.
—but to be honest, this way may be costly
—I agree with you, theres’s a lot of research and verification in this process.
—my proposal is simple, fair, and just. so nobody can complain why not me if they’re the loser. so just have a completion
—so there’s no limitations on who can apply, like with hers
—no limitation
—so doesn’t matter if poor or wealthy
—their background is irrelevant
--also only the poor people are going to be really motivated to join this competition, because the rich people are gonna be like I already have a flute. but I can also imagine that the poor people can’t get the day off work or practice enough to win…
—the people who really need this, for living
—so you’ll have a limitation?
—because even through the competition, if the people who actually get this flute, and he really doesn’t need it and puts it in their closet, it’s a waste.
—your proposal was the pool plus the lottery, so there’s a little bit of 緣分 involved.
—for having the instrument, for me it doesn’t matter if i get the best flute that can make my life better or not, but for some issues, for example the health insurance, people who really need this, the poor people who really need this, this kind of issue is good for this topic.
—so now we have to vote:
—it’s weird tho, we’re all going to vote for our own
—hasn’t anyone persuaded anyone else
—okay if the lottery winners can do what they want with the flute, I want yours
—anyone else want to vote for sb else’s
—I’ll stick with my own x2
—how about if the newcomer comes in and she or he can vote on our proposals
—I don’t think they’re going to come, lets move on
Should the PGA let him use a golf cart?
—there’s a circulation problem in his legs?
—it might be a heart thing? i really don’t know, or a blood clot in his leg that puts him at risk of a stroke? I don’t know actually.
—the point is no cart = can’t play, you’re excluding talented disabled players. is it fair?
—this one’s harder for me, to be honest. because on the hand, I don’t want to exclude disabled people, on the other hand, how do you then determine ‘true’ disability? it becomes like a judgement game.
—this is very interesting topic, because it’s unique to golf. because obviously you can’t use a golf cart in a marathon, but for golf? it’s hard to make a judgement. because I really think if you play well or don’t play well in golf, has nothing to do with the cart. it’s purely the skill of getting the ball into the hole. but using the cart or not doesn’t really make a difference. I actually do play golf, and sometimes i walk and sometimes I use a cart. some days if I use a cart I may suck, or I may walk and do well. it’s really about my luck that day. it’s not about your athleticism. for instance, you might even use one hand and get a hole in one. so I really can’t decide about the cart. but so i guess I favor being able to use the cart, because it’s about the shot, and so we can ignore how we travel. but is it fair or not? it’s hard to judge since I’m not professional
—well for me, it depends on what kind of condition they face. for instance if the rule was set before the tournaments, and the rule said, a golf is not allowed, and I think even though these people are very good at golf, and I think I will not let them use a golf cart, I think he should take care of his health and his body, if he wants to join the competition. just like for a singer. he cannot say that “oh because I got a cold so I cannot sing, so I need to, I want to have a machine to sing for me" or whatever. but if the rules don’t have anything about a golf cart in the rules before the competition, then I’ll agree with his point.
—so that’s more of a rules-based point of view.
—basically I agree with what he said. but for me, in this case, I think PGA should give a golf cart. because it doesn’t change the game.
—I also agree with both of you, the cart is not the point. if it was the marathon, it would be different.
Video:
“Justice means giving people what they deserve.” —Aristotle
Who deserves what and why?
—Why should the best flutes go to the best flute players?
—because the player can make the use of the flute, the most contribution, the most profit. for instance playing better music.
—we always thin the best things should go to the best people
—I have a worse idea than randomly handing them out.
—I wanna do what the Chi-may guy does, except he lends them out to the best players, I want to hand them out to anybody
—0you want to hand them out to the luckiest people, because they’re the ones who would win the lottery
—it’s better to lend them to someone who wants to have a performance, and they could then have a flute. this is the way to achieve the point
—is the point good music, or deserving people?
—but what’s the difference?
—I think the point is we do this to have good music. the ultimate result is the they can play the best music for us, whoever they are. otherwise you I cannot play violin, and you give it to me, what’s the point?
—this reminds me of the story of a person who plays the flute to chase out the mice in the town. if we give the flute to a bad player, she or he cannot maybe achieve that goal.
—so both of you are talking bout greater public good.
—but I think what I’m doing is maximizing private happiness, which then contributes to the greater good. you’re maximizing happiness through good music, i’m maximizing happiness through enjoying opportunities.
—yes I agree with this
—both are equally valid at the maximizing of happiness though.
Video:
Aristotle: fulfilling its purpose is the highest good, not the maximizing of happiness.
when we think about justice, the essential nature of the activity in question, and the qualities that are worth honoring, admiring and recognizing.
to honor and recognize the excellence of the best musicians. (maybe also the flute makers)
—that’s pretty similar to the philosophy of Japan, in terms of craftsmanship, like Ichiro the baseball player, he really cherished his tools, like the bat. every time he finished practicing, he will clean and dust it, and put it in a exquisite bag and box, but the other players just throw it down and let other take care of t. and he’s like, how can I not honor and cherish this tool that people made for me. I have to do that to do my best performance on the field. so that’s what he does by taking care of the bat. so this is similar, the best player is who can recognize and cherish this unique flute.
—can maximize the worth of the flute.
—for me it’s really about “fulfilling its purpose of the flutes is the highest good”
on the one hand it feels like a weirdly abstract thing to think about but it’s also what he’s talking about with the japanese baseball player.
—so how apply to the golf cart issue?
—you made the point that the player should have taken better care of his body, which counts as his ‘tool’ like the baseball bat.
—he should respect the competition, and their efforts for self-maintenance.
—but that’s not the issue for the PGA, if you ‘re not qualified, you can’t get in
—but according to the video’s point we should talk about the purpose of the golf cart, first.
—yes, good point.
—what’s the purpose of the golf cart
—to make people move faster, that way it can shrink the playing time on the field, so there’s no traffic jam. the marshal is the traffic cop on the course. so they’re required to have the cart, they can also make more money, then course
—so for that reason, the cart is good
—but the PGA never allows people to have carts
—but here’s another issue. Caddies, the people who carry your golf clubs.
—those guys are the ones who should be allowed to have the cart.
—my point is, everyone’s allowed caddies, if you can have a caddie, you should have a cart.
—caddies allow players to focus on their competition
—so does the carts.
—maybe for people who are good at walking it’s not an issue.
—my point is, why should the professionals be allowed to have sb else to carry their clubs?
—those professional players should have a feeling of honor, admiration and recognitions. because those bosses and ceos, besides them, there are people who carry the bags and open the car door, and give them the cup of hot tea, that’s probably the main reason.
—like tennis players also have lots of servants
—because they’re unique, no one like them
—it’s a rich man’s game
—my argument is that if they’re professionals they should respect the game and carry their own tools.
—alternatively the caddies should be allowed to drive and the players walk
—like a basketball player, they don’t have to carry anything, they just go to the court, because it’s all set up for them there. they even have a buffet.
—I think for this point, maybe the player the PGA can give the player a wheelchair if he has the leg problems, because for the player, he just wants to make himself easy to move. so the PGA can provide him the mobility aid
—what’s the difference between a golf cart and a wheelchair?
—I don’t know if any other players will question that giving him a wheelchair will make him have a better performance or not. but for my point, if he really needs it, he should have it.
—how about for disabled players, wanting to get into the game.
—can we give them a separate game
—a Paralympics for golf?
—honestly, i’m thinking they don’t set any limitations for disabled players for PGA, if you have one arm and play as well as tiger woods, nobody would stop them
—but what if they had cereal palsy?
—as long they don’t drag down the game pace
—they probably would tho? and if they did, would it be unfair to the other players?
yes it would
—and the main thing the audience would lose patience, and you would lose audience and investors.
—but if you’re a disabled player and can do as well as the other players, you would be a red-hot star
—I remember when I was young i knew of a baseball pitcher, with only one arm, and he could throw so well, he was in the MLB for several years. He played against a taiwanese team, and struck out every player of our team. He was so fast, 160 miles
—James Anthony Abbott
—was he born that way or an injury
—born that way.
—he impressed me a lot.
Video:
justice depended on the essential nature of golf: which is to get a small ball into a hole, and walking was incidental.
it’s not possible to determine the essential nature of a game of golf. the nature of a game is to have no object other than amusement, so there’s no essential purpose to golf, it’s hard to say which arbitrary rule is essential.
—so why then is that against the cart?
—sports are about calling for the excellences of the activity, or we wouldn’t care about it
—also it’s an argument about fairness, it should be just let everyone who wants to ride in a cart.
—what was at stake was not just the essential nature of golf, but the question is what abilities are worthy of honor and recognition talents?
—golfers are sensitive that their game is not ‘athletic’ enough.
—so if they all can’t use a cart, because then it’s not athletic, then why can they let the one guy use it?
—they’re saying he has no honor then, right? because if they have no honor to use a cart then he has no honor to use a cart.
Video:
what is the essential nature of the activity?
what excellences connected with that are worthy of honor and recognition?
state recognition of same sex marriage, or recognition of hetero marriage only?
what’s the purpose of marriage: procreation, that’s what’s worthy of honoring?
hetero procreation is not the point of marriage, it’s about a lifelong commitment between two people.
same-sex: what’s the purpose of social institutions, and what’s worthy of honor and recognition.
should moral convictions be a part of politics?
--we don’t really put moral convictions into requirement of politicians, but everybody does. the leaders on the table, if they have an affair or make mistakes in their private hours, like flirting with girls, he’ll get punished by public
—unless he’s trump0
—unless he’s trump, but regular politicians will. it’s an important standard.
—I think it’s impossible to have politics without moral standards.
—we require our leaders to be saints
—we want them to be better than us because they’re the ones leading us.
— like when we’re a children we get told how great our leaders are, and their legacy, that’s the nature of government, they want people to respect their leaders.
—I think nowadays, people forget the moral convictions in the politics, because the for citizens, they only care about what the politicians can give them. so this is a big problem. so they will be easily, the people will easily be influenced by some politicians they have specific purposes.
—I agree
—take another example, like Bill Clinton. how do you think about the Lewinski thing? he was a great leader, America really did well under him. of course he was attacked.
—but his wife is equally talented and can equally do a good job, but she gets attacked
—it’s because she’s female
—yep it is.
Final Statements:
I think I’ll just answer the question of the golf cart, because this topic is too big for me. Because in the end of the video, the speaker says, before we discuss the justice, we should think about the essential nature of the activity, so by this point, it is just saying that having a golf cart is like the first audience member says, it’s not part of the game. So I think this is only for the other players, they think if the PGA gives them a cart, that would influence the result of the game, so but if we put the question at the moral level, for the disabled person, that takes more energy for him to walk through the course, so it is, I agree with the supreme court, that give him the golf cart. because he is the person who needs it.
—and it doesn’t affect the game
—but it does affect the game, because otherwise the disabled person couldn’t play it.
—so by the PGA rules, do they ban the disable player, or…? because the didn’t say disabled person can play or not.
--so I don’t think they considered this dude a ‘disabled’ person, or I think the debate would have gone a different direction. I don’t know, do disabled people have a right to pursue honor by playing golf? I don’t know.
—sure they do
—so they should provide golf carts
—they have a right to pursue it, using other equipment, but not carts
—like a wheelchair.
—it’s hard to say. because wheelchair or not, they are disabled, basically they don’t have an advantage, they’re disabled. so with some kind of tool, it only helps them to become even, not over. not really a chance to win the game. but personally i don’t think it would happen, the PGA wouldn’t let them attend.
—because in the video it also said, the player, they feel to be honored and recognized because of their skills, so it should be about how he hits the ball, and not talking about how he walks from hole to hole. It’s two different kinds of questions.
I was intrigued by his argument at first, but later on when it jumped into the conclusion I was confused, I don’t know what eh politicians and moral convictions, how that relates. he said, we should not allow moral convictions into politics things
—I don’t think he said that?
—he said that moral convictions and politics, there’s a relation between them? I figured out the whole point of this talk is about the essential nature of activity. what’s the essential nature of the activity. for the moral conviction, he has the problem of opinions, people have the problem with what is the nature of the activity, politics we have a lot of opinions on the same issue. but for sports, we don’t have many opinions, because it’s a game with rules. we love sports because they have clear rules, and it focusses on fairness. same sex marriage is not clear. but the sports have very clear boundaries. the political issues has so many opinions by different people, and peoples’ opinions change with age. but golfing, and sports and poker, the standards are there, they won’t change in a 1000 years. so at the end of the video I’m confused about what he’s saying
—I agree that his point got muddy. because his actual framing point was how to create democratic discussion, I think he’s trying to say that the Aristotelian point is the main value that should be considered in democratic discussion
—maybe there’s a better topic for this discussion than the flute sand the golf course.
—his structure kind of falls apart at the end a little, basically.
Aristotle would say, give him the cart because then the purpose of the player is fulfilled? Or not give him the cart, so his honor could be fulfilled? does giving the player the cart better fulfill his purpose? It depends on the purpose of the game
—it depends on level, for ordinary people it doesn’t matter, but for million dollar games, it does matter.
— think his main point is that Honoring and recognizing the purpose of a person and their aims, this sounds like a recipe for dignity between people, and also a recipe therefore for good horizontal organizations of people. Recognizing others as human beings who have purpose and honor, in order to work well with them, and make decisions well with them. I think is the main point of the talk.
—it’s confusing, because for the point that honoring and recognizing are, it is fit for the flute case, but not for the golf cart case. because the golf cart is nothing about recognizing the skill of the player.
—yeah, true
—but think about the arrow and bow. if you have the best equipment, like from the USA, or the central african country, it’s not good quality, is that fair.
—people love sports for that 10 seconds of competition, we don’t care about all the things that go into it, how poor you are, just your performance. so it’s a limited scope of fairness. nobody can stop you if you’re good enough.
—but the other things also matter the training, sponsorship etc
—so that’s why people love underdog stories.
