“Philosophy professor presents and disproves both sides of abortion debate (TCU Daily Skiff)” plus 1 more |
| Philosophy professor presents and disproves both sides of abortion debate (TCU Daily Skiff) Posted: 27 Feb 2010 09:50 AM PST Popular arguments for the moral status of abortion are considered unsound by most philosophers, a University of Colorado philosophy professor said Thursday night in Palko Hall. The conflict between the embryo's right to life and the woman's right to control what happens inside her own body serves as the underlying issue on the debate on abortion, said Michael Tooley, a philosophy professor from the University of Colorado at Boulder and 2010 Green Honors Chair Professor for the philosophy department. The abortion morality argument that receives the most attention in philosophical circles is the appeal to potentialities, he said. This theory states that any human fetus has the potential to acquire the capacity for thought and self-consciousness and therefore has a serious right to life. Tooley said any argument for or against abortion must be applicable to all issues pertaining to life and death, such as those who are in a coma or remain dependent on others to live. The scale can tip in favor of one over the other based on the woman's responsibility to the creation of the embryo and one's perception of the embryo as a human. Tooley said the woman's responsibility to the embryo depends on the woman's participation in sexual intercourse, whether voluntary or involuntary. The ambiguous nature of the point when the embryo develops characteristics that distinguish it as human is subject to debate within the scientific community and therefore makes it easy for either side to interpret. Cameron Kistler, sophomore health and fitness major, said he has considered himself pro-choice in the past, but after hearing Tooley's lecture, he said he seriously questioned the reasons that brought him to that decision. The potentiality argument, he said, brought up interesting points that he had never considered philosophically before. Tooley emphasized the differences in arguments of ordinary people opposed to those of philosophically informed people. Often participants in popular arguments do not consider abortion to be an intellectual dilemma, he said. "I think many people feel that their views on abortion are part of a very general view," Tooley said. People who identify with either the pro-choice or pro-life movement often see the belief as an integral issue that is indivisible from their other political views, he said. He used the example of feminists identifying themselves as pro-choice and Catholics identifying themselves as pro-life not on the moral status of abortion, but as a part of their general beliefs. "It's important to take the argument seriously," Tooley said. "One must think not in terms of one view or the other but really focus on the argument, and the other argument and what arguments are good." Regardless of anyone's political views on the issue of abortion, Tooley said he hoped the lecture would allow attendees to examine both sides and understand the importance of an argument based on logic, rather than looking at the issue as good or evil. Tooley will speak on arguments for and against the existence of God today at 2 p.m. in Palko Hall. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Developing An Investment Philosophy: Chapter 2 (Guru Focus) Posted: 27 Feb 2010 07:57 AM PST Warren Buffett has called himself "85% Graham and 15% Fisher". While the works of Graham are often cited, Fisher's book "Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits" is not. Here follows a summary of the expanded version of this book, which includes 2 other works by Fisher including "Conservative Investors Sleep Well" and "Developing an Investment Philosophy".
In this chapter, Fisher discusses how his investment philosophy has changed over time as he has learned from experience. Fisher shares some of his learnings, as well as some corollaries of those learnings which can be of use to investors.
First, Fisher has a three-year rule when it comes to selling investments. Unless he uncovers information which makes him doubt his original thesis, Fisher will not give up on a company before this time. However, if a company has not fulfilled its promise after three years, he will sell it immediately. Too often, he has seen companies underperform for a year or more, but when the gains do arrive, they come quickly and to a large extent. Rarely will it get to a point where Fisher has to sell after three years; this is not because all his investments pay off handsomely, but rather as a result of the fact that he will often uncover information that is not to his liking before that time is reached.
After a couple of early mistakes, Fisher vowed never to invest significantly in a company without getting to know its management first. There are two traits Fisher believes make for a top-notch management. The first is business skill. For superior business skill, management must not only be above-average handlers of the company's day-to-day tasks (e.g. finding more efficient ways to produce, managing receivables with sufficient diligence etc.), but must also have the ability to look ahead and make long-range plans that will produce future growth without taking huge financial risks. The second trait management must have is integrity, as they will always be closer to the business' affairs than stockholders.
Many are of the view that to make the most money in the market, one must be a contrarian, zigging when the market zags. However, this is not enough: the contrary opinion must also be correct. Simply going against the prevailing opinions will not result in outperformance, and can result in detriment. For example, as it became obvious that the automobile would replace the streetcar, shares in the latter sold at ever-lower P/E values; nevertheless, it would have been costly to buy these securities simply on the grounds that they were not favoured by the market. It is for this reason that Fisher came up with the three-year rule, as a quantitative check to stop him from continuing to be go against the market for too long.
Fisher has also played around with market timing. However, he found that the gains that were to be made (if there were any) were small relative to what could be made from trying to find the truly homerun stocks that are out there. Saj Karsan Saj Karsan founded an investment and research firm that is based on the principles of value investing. He has an MBA from the Richard Ivey School of Business, and an undergraduate engineering degree from McGill University. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment