• Middlebury College Bans Energy Drinks, Linking Use to Alcohol, 'High-Risk' Sex
    131 replies, posted
Yerba matte is actually pretty good, I just can't find it anywhere.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875767]I'm curious. By what measure do you deem "paternalistic" actions immoral?[/QUOTE] A few reasons off the top of my head: 1) It assumes that one person is superior to another, based on the subjective opinion of people. (as opposed to the objective fact that children, for example, are mentally inferior to adults) 2) I believe that freedom is an inherent good and that saving someone from the consequences of their own actions is not a justifiable reason to take it away. I'm sure a more coherent case can be made. So here are a few quick thoughts, but I'll try to come up with a more cohesive answer if I can.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875788]A few reasons off the top of my head: 1) It assumes that one person is superior to another, based on the opinion of people. 2) I believe that freedom is an inherent good and that saving someone from the consequences of their own actions is not a justifiable reason to take it away. I'm sure a more coherent case can be made. So here are a few quick thoughts, but I'll try to come up with a more cohesive answer if I can.[/QUOTE] My personal judgement is based on total utility: if banning something leads to an increase in total utility, then it is a moral action. Of course, there's a lot of fuzziness with how to weight the various factors when calculating the utility, so there's definitely room for criticism. In this specific case of banning energy drinks, I'm almost certain that there's a net decrease in utility because: 1. People are going to get their energy drinks anyway, they're just going to have to go out of their way which will annoy everyone. 2. The "link" between energy drinks and the behaviours cited is patent nonsense. Therefore in my view this action is rubbish, which is in fact in agreement with your view. I just felt that your assignment of "freedom" (a rather nebulous concept in itself) as an inherent good was dubious.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875841]My personal judgement is based on total utility: if banning something leads to an increase in total utility, then it is a moral action. Of course, there's a lot of fuzziness with how to weight the various factors when calculating the utility, so there's definitely room for criticism. In this specific case of banning energy drinks, I'm almost certain that there's a net decrease in utility because: 1. People are going to get their energy drinks anyway, they're just going to have to go out of their way which will annoy everyone. 2. The "link" between energy drinks and the behaviours cited is patent nonsense. Therefore in my view this action is rubbish, which is in fact in agreement with your view. I just felt that your assignment of "freedom" (a rather nebulous concept in itself) as an inherent good was dubious.[/QUOTE] What are your utility variables? What are you trying to maximize? Also, who gets to decide the decision of most utility when disagreements arise? Why?
the school has the right and freedom to make this decision
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875847]What are your utility variables? What are you trying to maximize?[/QUOTE] Well-being, but to be frank I don't have a general framework. I use it on a case-by-case basis, and in a relatively qualitative manner. I account for both individual well-being (e.g. happiness or anger that arises from perceived freedom of choice or lack thereof) as well as social well-being (e.g. lower crime rates due to decreased alcohol consumption). I probably place a greater weight on social well-being than you do, which might explain our differences.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875884]Well-being, but to be frank I don't have a general framework. I use it on a case-by-case basis, and in a relatively qualitative manner. I account for both individual well-being (e.g. happiness or anger that arises from perceived freedom of choice or lack thereof) as well as social well-being (e.g. lower crime rates due to decreased alcohol consumption). I probably place a greater weight on social well-being than you do, which might explain our differences.[/QUOTE] So, when there's a disagreement, how do you decide who gets to make the final decision? I ask because this is the real issue. I don't see any objective way to answer that question between two adults, therefore I conclude that it's best for each person to make their own decisions unless it has a direct effect on someone else. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] I may be wrong, but you seem to believe that power determines who gets to make the final decision.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875895]So, when there's a disagreement, how do you decide who gets to make the final decision? I ask because this is the real issue. I don't see any objective way to answer that question between two adults, therefore I conclude that it's best for each person to make their own decisions unless it has a direct effect on someone else. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] I may be wrong, but you seem to believe that power determines who gets to make the final decision.[/QUOTE] Well it depends on the situation. To answer your second point first, I think what you're referencing is a government making decisions on behalf of its citizens. On this point, I believe that we elect a government to make some decisions on our behalf, partially for practical reasons, and partially because they are better at making decisions (at least, that is one of my criteria for what constitutes a good government). This process should, in theory, be self-regulating, as a government that makes bad decisions (or overreaching decisions) will be voted out in favour of one that makes better decisions. So that settles the case of a decisions made "for society": the government makes those decisions because we elect them to. In other cases where the well-being of society is less relevant, individual well-being becomes the major factor. One problem that arises here is that utility is weighted differently by different individuals and you cannot say that one weighting is more correct than another. I don't think this is as much of an issue as you think it is, because in such situations the decision is often made as a compromise. In cases where the choices of one party don't really affect the other party then this whole discussion is kind of irrelevant isn't it?
sgman, I normally agree with you as we both share libertarian views and values. however in this case as middlebury college is a private institution, I believe they have the right to do as they please on their own property.
I think the biggest thing to take away from this is that a higher-education institute thinks energy drinks is linked to high risk sex. How stupid is that.
Oh man, this is such a clumsy argument. A private college decided to stop selling something because people don't use it responsibly. Sgman is freaking out because the college dared to decide what not to sell in its own store, not based on rational economics, but because of their sense of moral concern. It's just not [I]his[/I] sense of morals, so he's got to make a contrived philosophical case that what this is really about... is [B]freedom.[/B] :terrists: Two pages of rabid, cede no ground arguing wouldn't be justified if this were just about the energy drinks. No, it has to be something bigger, something universal to human existence, signified by this one college's decision. There are times and places to make a stand, but this is so asinine I'm having a hard time believing it's actually happening.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49876162]Well it depends on the situation. To answer your second point first, I think what you're referencing is a government making decisions on behalf of its citizens. On this point, I believe that we elect a government to make some decisions on our behalf, partially for practical reasons, and partially because they are better at making decisions (at least, that is one of my criteria for what constitutes a good government). This process should, in theory, be self-regulating, as a government that makes bad decisions (or overreaching decisions) will be voted out in favour of one that makes better decisions. So that settles the case of a decisions made "for society": the government makes those decisions because we elect them to. In other cases where the well-being of society is less relevant, individual well-being becomes the major factor. One problem that arises here is that utility is weighted differently by different individuals and you cannot say that one weighting is more correct than another. I don't think this is as much of an issue as you think it is, because in such situations the decision is often made as a compromise. In cases where the choices of one party don't really affect the other party then this whole discussion is kind of irrelevant isn't it?[/QUOTE] Here's where I don't see the coherency of your position. You say that elected bodies have the moral right to make decisions for the body that elected them, and if the body doesn't like them, then they have the right to elect new leaders, but what if the majority of the body wants to do horrible things? Say the majority wants to institute slavery of the minority. How does your system fight against that? I mean, this isn't a far-fetched example. We have many example, even in the modern era, of absolutely terrible things being done in the name of progress and the will of the majority. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mr kjerr;49876222]sgman, I normally agree with you as we both share libertarian views and values. however in this case as middlebury college is a private institution, I believe they have the right to do as they please on their own property.[/QUOTE] As I've said at least three times now, I've never said that they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want.
[QUOTE=Jackpody;49875215]The students are there to study and if the campus sells something that is linked to stress and therefore issues studying, they're sending the wrong signal (and it obviously doesn't help the students either).[/QUOTE] So they shouldn't impose deadlines on the students, either? Energy drinks are not the source of collegiate stress, tests and heavy workload are the source.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;49876623]Oh man, this is such a clumsy argument. A private college decided to stop selling something because people don't use it responsibly. Sgman is freaking out because the college dared to decide what not to sell in its own store, not based on rational economics, but because of their sense of moral concern. It's just not [I]his[/I] sense of morals, so he's got to make a contrived philosophical case that what this is really about... is [B]freedom.[/B] :terrists: Two pages of rabid, cede no ground arguing wouldn't be justified if this were just about the energy drinks. No, it has to be something bigger, something universal to human existence, signified by this one college's decision. There are times and places to make a stand, but this is so asinine I'm having a hard time believing it's actually happening.[/QUOTE] I'm "freaking out" because I want to have a fun friendly argument on a forum? Really? I'm sitting here smiling, having a good time listening to other people's opinions. If you can't do that, then this probably isn't the place for you! I saw a topic that could be interesting. So I jumped in! Why not? There's nothing to lose. At worst I get to see how my opinions don't stand up to criticism.
[QUOTE=axelord157;49875191]I anticipated this reponse from you or somebody else. If you read the article, you'd learned that the school doesn't want to be responsible for selling shit that has been scientifically proven over and over again to wreck your body. The college ISN'T BANNING the consumption of energy drinks. The college IS BANNING THEIR SALE of energy drinks. Their students can still get energy drinks from other sources.[/QUOTE] They're so worried about student health that they have featured an event inviting students for cocktails at a local bar. [quote]If you haven’t had the chance to head over to Stonecutter Spirits then this would be a great night to come to 51 Main’s Burger Night and try their delicious gin! Sas will be here to tell you all about how this gin was created right here in Middlebury and we’ll be shaking up some of their amazing cocktails.[/quote]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49876671]Here's where I don't see the coherency of your position. You say that elected bodies have the moral right to make decisions for the body that elected them, and if the body doesn't like them, then they have the right to elect new leaders, but what if the majority of the body wants to do horrible things? Say the majority wants to institute slavery of the minority. How does your system fight against that? I mean, this isn't a far-fetched example. We have many example, even in the modern era, of absolutely terrible things being done in the name of progress and the will of the majority.[/QUOTE] Well, to be completely honest, if majority of the society elects a body that wants to do those things, then so be it. That's what society is, isn't it? A bunch of people agreeing on how to live. I don't believe in moral absolutism, and therefore your question is a non-issue. Of course, this is why we have things like the constitution, laws, and other various legal agreements. At some point, the idea that certain things are horrible will gain enough traction in society that it collectively lays down a set of rules that say "this is how we assign utility to various actions, and we assign those horrible things great negative utility". This has happened to things like slavery and war crimes, and will likely continue to happen to other things (transgender rights for example). Sometime in the past century the agreements became a global thing and we started having things like universal human rights.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49876785]Well, to be completely honest, if majority of the society elects a body that wants to do those things, then so be it. That's what society is, isn't it? A bunch of people agreeing on how to live. I don't believe in moral absolutism, and therefore your question is a non-issue. Of course, this is why we have things like the constitution, laws, and other various legal agreements. At some point, the idea that certain things are horrible will gain enough traction in society that it collectively lays down a set of rules that say "this is how we assign utility to various actions, and we assign those horrible things great negative utility". This has happened to things like slavery and war crimes, and will likely continue to happen to other things (transgender rights for example). Sometime in the past century the agreements became a global thing and we started having things like universal human rights.[/QUOTE] Wait, earlier you were saying that you proscribe to a utility system of morality. Were you just giving the way you personally proscribe morality? If so, then your system doesn't really apply to any decisions beyond your own, correct? Also, I really don't think the fight against slavery in the US, for example, was on the basis of low utility, but on the basis of human equality being a fundamental moral assumption.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49876888]Wait, earlier you were saying that you proscribe to a utility system of morality. Were you just giving the way you personally proscribe morality? If so, then your system doesn't really apply to any decisions beyond your own, correct? Also, I really don't think the fight against slavery in the US, for example, was on the basis of low utility, but on the basis of human equality being a fundamental moral assumption.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean, I gave the way I think about morality, and I also described how I think a utilitarian society would work (which is where the bits about slavery came in). So no, my system applies to decision making as a society, not just personal actions. Lack of equality leads to negative utility from the enslaved. It's how I think of it anyway. [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] I'm also posting on about 4 hours of sleep so I may not make sense.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49876969]I'm not sure what you mean, I gave the way I think about morality, and I also described how I think a utilitarian society would work (which is where the bits about slavery came in). So no, my system applies to decision making as a society, not just personal actions. Lack of equality leads to negative utility from the enslaved. It's how I think of it anyway. [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] I'm also posting on about 4 hours of sleep so I may not make sense.[/QUOTE] Let me phrase it like this: Let's say there's a guy that needs to make a choice. He has a choice of higher utility and one of lower utility. Would you say that he ought to take the one of higher utility or just that you, personally, would take the one of higher utility? Or in other words, is he doing anything wrong by taking the path of lower utility? Please don't feel rushed to answer tonight.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875205]That changes nothing. It's a legal drink and students should be allowed to make their own choice on whether to buy it. The campus store is there to provide a service to the students, not tell them what's good for them. (and that doesn't even include the private sales from franchised locations on campus)[/QUOTE] The shop has the right to refuse sale as much as students are allowed to make choices. The university to an extent is responsible for the well being of their students and so they've stopped sale of this item on campus. Not exactly hard to walk to another place and get them, but at least its not immediately available. I'm not sure why you are so against the university advising students on 'what is good for them' and 'not doing what the students want'; if I recall university is a place of learning not an extended lounge. [QUOTE=sgman91;49877096] Please don't feel rushed to answer tonight.[/QUOTE] Uh, got a real chip on your shoulder about this eh?
Doesn't stop any of us from thinking it's a retarded choice for a ban, you can argue it's healthier for any number of reasons and yet these students can still turn to coffee/tea or they can find their energy drinks in another store whilst the college gets less sales because they banned a perfectly legal product. It would've been better to combat the real reasons students stay up late or the causes for college stress but they just went for the feel good nanny state response which is to ban things then ignore the actual problems. Kind of like how our conservative tory government gladly bans anything that causes them issues whilst glossing completely over any of the hardships it might cause and any illegal alternatives that might prop up from it's ban that are arguably more harmful than the original banned product.
To call it a "Ban" in inaccurate, They've simply stopped promoting sale of a product they feel is harmful to the study habits of their students. They aren't treading on anyone's rights, they're simply refusing to be complicit in providing a specific product that they view hinders their ability to provide higher learning to their students. They aren't stopping anyone from consuming these goods, they're simply no longer providing them. I don't care either way about the issue because I understand both sides but please don't call it a "Ban", it's not. I do however agree with chopstick that it's not going to actually solve anything, and that they're tackling the wrong issues with this move to make themselves feel better.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875371]The intent is what matters. Stopping the sale of something that people wren't buying is, in effect, acting in order to better serve your customers. Stopping the sale of something because you don't think it's good for them is acting in order to paternalistically stop them from making their own choices that you think are bad.[/QUOTE] and? where's the problem
Weird to see Middlebury College make news like this, it's a pretty small school. Vermont also started taxing energy drinks as much as alchohol I think... Its rough. I'm an energy drink drink addict :(
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49878302]Weird to see Middlebury College make news like this, it's a pretty small school. Vermont also started taxing energy drinks as much as alchohol I think... Its rough. I'm an energy drink drink addict :([/QUOTE] Aye, I drive to NH to get my Soda fix.
Energy drinks don't do anything for me but maybe that's because I've got ADD. Adderall is the only thing that keeps me studying and doing my homework. I only buy energy drinks on slight occasions and that's just for the flavor. Idk about you guys energy drinks do nothing for me. I'm willing to bet that this will do nothing to college kids that drink energy drinks and they're probably over priced on campus to begin with so this is pretty stupid.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875205]That changes nothing. It's a legal drink and students should be allowed to make their own choice on whether to buy it. The campus store is there to provide a service to the students, not tell them what's good for them. (and that doesn't even include the private sales from franchised locations on campus)[/QUOTE] that's kinda dumb. i'm a student and I can tell you now that having energy drinks is a BAD idea, assignment deadlines near, energy drink consumption increases, cardiac arrest or similar bad side effects chance increases, if that does happen, university is held liable, just wouldn't look good on their part. you know?
[QUOTE=Erasus;49878509]that's kinda dumb. i'm a student and I can tell you now that having energy drinks is a BAD idea, assignment deadlines near, energy drink consumption increases, cardiac arrest or similar bad side effects chance increases, if that does happen, university is held liable, just wouldn't look good on their part. you know?[/QUOTE] I think if they want to blame the energy drink consumption on anything they should blame it on the education system. Don't place so much stress on students and assignments. I just don't see how the high stress of a full time college schedule is good for your health. Stress is the leading cause of many health problems but we're pretty much told from the beginning that it's not a bad thing and if you want to be successful you should go to college. With so much to learn and so many assignments to do you'd be nuts not to be tempted to drink energy drinks. I think our education system is to blame. Just look at high stress work environments. The energy/caffeine drink consumption is most likely higher in those places. I've found that it seems like grades and the amount of work you can complete is more important than your health in this day/age. It's just disappointing. And to be clear I'm not saying don't go to college I just feel like there's more ways schools could help lighten the load of stress placed on students while still getting the education they're paying for.
All drinks with sugar are expensive here. Bottles of like 16oz diet coke cost $2 exactly. Oh and cigarettes like marlboro's are ALMOST up to $10 a pack now, but that's not related I guess. [edit] we tax Arizona's here
[quote]The American Academy of Pediatrics says energy drinks have "no place" in the diet of children and adolescents. [/quote] Man it sure is good that colleges have neither of these groups in them [I]at all, what the fuck are they talking about[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.