Philosophy Now Forum

Many philosophers insist that their own ideal or set of ideals is the best. Over that, many people do the same.

I suggest turning that zeal for the ideal into devotion for the notion.

Let our actions yield to a belief in the knowledge rather than mores.

Disclaimer: Doing so may make you unpopular, and I’m guessing.

[quote=Systematic post_id=472233 time=1600552993 user_id=10693]
Many philosophers insist that their own ideal or set of ideals is the best. Over that, many people do the same.

I suggest turning that zeal for the ideal into devotion for the notion.

Let our actions yield to a belief in the knowledge rather than mores.

Disclaimer: Doing so may make you unpopular, and I’m guessing.
[/quote]

I'm having a problem with the language here. An ideal, as you formulate it, if synonymous with mores, which is somehow different than morals, and morals represent ideas? This isn't how i understand them at all. An ideal can be reasonable or not, just like an idea. I'd say an ideal is an idea taken to its logical extreme. If it's a good idea that won't break it, and if it's a bad one the train why should be obvious under that condition.

Let say you are supposed to go for a serious and critical brain surgery; of the two hospitals A and B which will you choose?

• Hospital A
  Noting the average rate of death by doctor's negligence in all hospital in the USA is say 10 per year,
  Hospital A establish their Vision and Mission as,
  We will strive to ensure death by doctor's negligence will not exceed 5 per year.
  
  The rationale of Hospital A is, given the national average is 10 and humans being fallible, they will strive and doing their best to target 5 deaths per year is commendable and acceptable. Thus if the number of death per year is 5 or less, they would accept they have done a good job given they have better than the national average.
  Hospital A will build and organize their management structure and process to meet the above vision and mission.

Meanwhile

• Hospital B
  Noting the average rate of death by doctor's negligence in all hospital in the USA is say 10 per year,
  Hospital B establish their Vision and Mission as,
  We adopt a ZERO DEFECT Policy and will strive to ensure death by doctor's negligence will be ZERO per year.
  
  The rationale of Hospital B for setting an IDEAL standard is, given the national average is 10 and despite humans being fallible, they will strive and doing their very best to ensure ZERO death per year, thus any death due to doctor's negligence is a serious variance. This is in alignment with their mission in respecting the right to live of every patient.
  
  Hospital B will build and organize their management structure and process to meet the above vision and mission.

In this case, when Hospital B set their standard to ZERO death, they will have to ensure [to Quality Auditors expectations] their set up are established to meet such a standard.
If there is any death due to doctor's negligence they will investigate to plus any weaknesses in the system to ensure the targets of ZERO DEFECT is met.

Now which Hospital would you prefer to have your surgery given that Hospital B fees may be a slightly higher and that you have the relevant insurance cover.

I believe any rational person in this case will opt for Hospital B and thus the recognition and respect for IDEALS instead of Ideas.

I believe in some other situations the IDEAL may not be practical thus one will have to do one's best and hope for the optimal.

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=472555 time=1600671754 user_id=7896]
Let say you are supposed to go for a serious and critical brain surgery; of the two hospitals A and B which will you choose?

[list][b]Hospital A[/b]
Noting the average rate of death by doctor's negligence in all hospital in the USA is say 10 per year,
Hospital A establish their Vision and Mission as,
[b]We will strive to ensure death by doctor's negligence will not exceed 5 per year.
[/b]
The rationale of Hospital A is, given the national average is 10 and humans being fallible, they will strive and doing their best to target 5 deaths per year is commendable and acceptable. Thus if the number of death per year is 5 or less, they would accept they have done a good job given they have better than the national average.
Hospital A will build and organize their management structure and process to meet the above vision and mission.
[/list]

Meanwhile

[list][b]Hospital B[/b]
Noting the average rate of death by doctor's negligence in all hospital in the USA is say 10 per year,
Hospital B establish their Vision and Mission as,
[b]We adopt a ZERO DEFECT Policy and will strive to ensure death by doctor's negligence will be ZERO per year.
[/b]
The rationale of Hospital B for setting an IDEAL standard is, given the national average is 10 and despite humans being fallible, they will strive and doing their very best to ensure ZERO death per year, thus any death due to doctor's negligence is a serious variance. This is in alignment with their mission in respecting the right to live of every patient.

Hospital B will build and organize their management structure and process to meet the above vision and mission.
[/list]

In this case, when Hospital B set their standard to ZERO death, they will have to ensure [to Quality Auditors expectations] their set up are established to meet such a standard.
If there is any death due to doctor's negligence they will investigate to plus any weaknesses in the system to ensure the targets of ZERO DEFECT is met.

Now which Hospital would you prefer to have your surgery given that Hospital B fees may be a slightly higher and that you have the relevant insurance cover.

I believe any rational person in this case will opt for Hospital B and thus the recognition and respect for IDEALS instead of Ideas.

I believe in some other situations the IDEAL may not be practical thus one will have to do one's best and hope for the optimal.
[/quote]

Leaving aside that hospitals are extremely well entrenched and are typically a dominant political force in their area, which has major implications about trusting both their ideals And their ideas...

I'd choose option a, and not just because of cost. They both have an ideal of reducing unnecessary deaths but hospital A has a reasonable target that it's employees can actually reach with appropriate effort. There are also implications about employee stress level and authoritarianism to consider.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:20 pm Leaving aside that hospitals are extremely well entrenched and are typically a dominant political force in their area, which has major implications about trusting both their ideals And their ideas...

I'd choose option a, and not just because of cost. They both have an ideal of reducing unnecessary deaths but hospital A has a reasonable target that it's employees can actually reach with appropriate effort. There are also implications about employee stress level and authoritarianism to consider.

I had assumed ceteris paribus, i.e. all other factors are the same except for the highlighted and critical factors in the two options.

If you choose option A you are not rational.
Whilst hospital A has a 'reasonable' [whose definition btw] target the patient according to plan has a 5% chance of dying as norms. In practice the actual % could be higher.
In this case, there is the worry, the patient could be one of the statistics before they enter the hospital for their surgery. In this case, this is stress for the patients.

With hospital B, according to what is promised, patients have zero chance of dying, but humans, being fallible, there is always the possibility that given hospital B strategies. If any patient dies it would be a rarity rather than a norm.
To ensure the ZERO Defect is achievable, hospital B adopt the idiot-proofing strategies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot-proof
Btw, I forget to mention the above are also represented by actual statistics, over say 10 years or more.

Note the common idiom;

• aim for the stars [if not, you could land on the moon]
  Don't limit yourself—aspire to achieve greatness, even if it seems impossible or impractical.

I had this advice during my school days;
Normally it is difficult to please the examiner to get high marks in a written test.
In any written subjective tests, study to aim for 150 marks [ideal] out of 100.
In this case, one can likely to get higher marks than the norm when every other student resigned to the norm.

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=472728 time=1600751016 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472578 time=1600694453 user_id=15238]
Leaving aside that hospitals are extremely well entrenched and are typically a dominant political force in their area, which has major implications about trusting both their ideals And their ideas...

I'd choose option a, and not just because of cost. They both have an ideal of reducing unnecessary deaths but hospital A has a reasonable target that it's employees can actually reach with appropriate effort. There are also implications about employee stress level and authoritarianism to consider.
[/quote]
I had assumed [i]ceteris paribus[/i], i.e. all other factors are the same except for the highlighted and critical factors in the two options.

If you choose option A you are not rational.
Whilst[b] hospital A[/b] has a 'reasonable' [whose definition btw] target the patient according to plan has a 5% chance of dying as norms. In practice the actual % could be higher.
In this case, there is the worry, the patient could be one of the statistics before they enter the hospital for their surgery. In this case, this is stress for the patients.

With hospital B, according to what is promised, patients have zero chance of dying, but humans, being fallible, there is always the possibility that given hospital B strategies. If any patient dies it would be a rarity rather than a norm.
To ensure the ZERO Defect is achievable, hospital B adopt the [b]idiot-proofing[/b] strategies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot-proof
Btw, I forget to mention the above are also represented by actual statistics, over say 10 years or more.

Note the common idiom;
[list][b]aim for the stars[/b] [if not, you could land on the moon]
Don't limit yourself—aspire to achieve greatness, even if it seems impossible or impractical.[/list]

I had this advice during my school days;
Normally it is difficult to please the examiner to get high marks in a written test.
In any written subjective tests, study to aim for 150 marks [ideal] out of 100.
In this case, one can likely to get higher marks than the norm when every other student resigned to the norm.
[/quote]

"All else being equal" is a handy tool but most philosophical ideas are wrong because they fail to account for something. And how could i possibly set aside a fact like not caring if i die? These matters must be settled with a firm comprehension of the contingent value of salience, perspective, and priority. They are not truth claims.