/lit/ - Literature

>>10941731
child A obviously

>>10941731
Child B should get the flute for sure

>>10941731
B without a doubt. A had a shot. I actually scoffed when I read "poor" for C, and I'm poverty tier

I don't give it to any of them. I want to learn the flute.

This is stupid because child B already has the flute and says as much by indicating I would be taking it away from her. Why would I take away some kid's flute in the first place?

>>10941731
Child A.
An object that is not going to be put to use may as well not exist at all.
Child A by virtue of her skill and desire for the instrument is the most likely to give the item purpose and as such validate its creation.
Child B is the American filth option and child C is for silly egalitarians with equally soft hearts and brains.

Frankly I would punish Child B and C for even suggesting that they had any real claim to the item.

The only reason why B would NOT get it is IF this takes place in a communist, egalitarian dystopia

>>10941762
Furthermore, A getting the flute is the right-wing dystopia, while C getting it is the left-wing dystopia.

The child that best actualises the Yamnaya Aryan phenotype who invades the playground, beats up the other children, takes the flute by force, and rules the others as a musical aristocrat overlord.

>>10941731
Child A gets the flute, Child B gets some form of compensation since it was her creation. Giving it to Child C is stupid, though it would be nice if you could give him something that a poor person would get more use of than a flute.

I know Child B is supposed to be a parallel to Marx, but if she also provided the materials, does that mean she owns the means of production? She's already ahead of Marx. If there were some expensive tools necessary to make the flute, am I to assume that she owns those too or is there hypothetical capitalist kid D who says that the they have claim to the flute because it was their initiative and financial risk that allowed there to be a flute in the first place.

Also, what the fuck is Child C talking about? If he doesn't play the flute, what's he going to be doing with the flute? He represents no philosophy; he just seems like a shitty kid.

Child A doesn't even care if anyone wants her to hear her play the flute either. Half the time, I don't even want to listen to GOOD flute music.

>>10941731
Engage in Socratic dialogues with them. You are the Socrates. If the kid misses his line to advance the dialogue then you say: "You may say X..." and continue.

there is no flute

only non-being

The Greeks: Child A

>>10941731

show them jordan peterson clips on youtube

>>10941775
but why child A get the flute when B clearly rightful owner of the flute , actually who are we to even intervene this situation and why would our words matter to these kids

>>10941731
The correct response to the meme is "Why do I have the flute?"

>>10941801
Because it's my property.

>>10941731
i like this because the unspoken implication is that "you" stands for a totalitarian state that already confiscated everyone's property.

>>10941816
I love how easy it is to influence the way people think, just gotta ask the right questions in the right way

>>10941809
If the flute is my property after child B made the flute then I either stole the flute or purchased it fairly. The flute goes to the child who pays the market value of the flute on a first-come-first-serve basis

>>10941731
B gets to keep it and can sell it to A. C can fuckoff and be poor somewhere else.

In the kind of world I want to live in, child B already had the flute and it should be she who would give it away (or not).
That said, I think child B should be replaced with a child who offers to pay for the flute, though he can neither play it not needs it in any way.

What the fuck is this question even? If you made it then it's yours.

>>10941731
Leave them alone with the complete works of Plato, they'll figure it out

>>10941760
Actually if you're going to act tough then you should punish A for not actualizing his own potential by buying or making a flute himself. I would applaud B for being resourceful enough to produce something and for knowing how to make shekels out of it by selling it to narcissistic musicians.

>>10941839

it seems designed to lead someone into supporting the communist argument.

>>10941731
the best flute player obviously, why would you give it to a pleb, and Child B should be happy that his creation will be brought to the highest expression, she should rejoice in her art that made possible this superior expression of the human spirit

>>10941760
In the kind of world I want to live in, people like you would be shot.

>>10941781
there's no being nor non-being, nor denial itself

Drop the flute in the middle of the children and let them fight over it. Whoever manages to keep hold of the flute is the most deserving.

>>10941853
why would the best flute player be the best flute maker?

SPLIT THE FLUTE IN THRICE

>>10941875
except Child A would be the best shot, and you'd be dead before you even got close

>>10941888
3 digits
3 pieces
Trips will it.

Place the children behind a veil of ignorance and ask them, if they were randomly assigned to be child a b or c, who should get the flute.

>>10941731
give it to B so she can sell it to A or donate it to C
I could just keep the flute and play it myself, but I don't like flutes, so I especially don't want it to go to A

>>10941731
>ctrl f
>sophies world
>no results
Literally written for that purpose. Entertaining and great too

>>10941823
he's posting stirner, the meme is that all things are voluntary egoists property

>>10941731
B can keep it since she made it. A could teach B how to play it and B could show A how to make one. C is a jealous little fucker who only cares about the flute because the other two are arguing about it. Im sorry no one answered your actual question

>>10941933
>B can keep it since she made it. A could teach B how to play it and B could show A how to make one.
literally the worst possible solution

>>10941936
why

>>10941933
I did. >>10941927

Multiple answers:

1. I already have the flute, why should I give it away to someone else?
2. If I can't keep it myself, I destroy the flute. Granting the flute to someone else gives them an advantage over me.
3. I let the kids fight over the flute. Whoever can hold on to it has earned it.

Question needs more context to answer correctly.

>>10941960
Keep wandering. You're too dumb for this board.

>>10941886
I said that he could either buy or make one.
The picture is absurd anyway. How can A afford flute lessons and not a flute? Why would B make a flute she didn't know how to play unless she was planning on selling it to A? How could A learn the flute without the existence of people like B who make things they don't consume or use themselves? How could giving C a flute make him any better? (it might actually make him a lucrative target for theft, especially if he lives in a poor neighborhood).

>>10941965
You're dumb for thinking inside the constraints of this R*ddit tier thought experiment.

>>10941731

Why can child B not make three more flutes?

>>10941975
why should he

>>10941976
so that the other two will not seize the only one

>>10941976

>He

I took the flute, so now she has none, so she has to make at least one more.

Split it into 3 parts

>>10941731
Destroy the flute. None of the brats should have it

>>10941885
Yes, Bertolt, but really the one that lets go first should get it, as they had the most respect for the flute and didn’t want it to get broken in the tug of war. Isn’t that right?

>>10941731
>asks about intro philosophy for childeren by posting an example
>/lit/ discusses the kid's image like a bunch of middle schoolers.

Thank God someone at least mentioned Sophie's World.

>>10941965
You're dumb for talking with a tripfag

>>10941866
Surprised they didn't make C a person of color

>>10941731
Why would you want to corrupt their brain

>>10941779
This is the answer. I’m a christfag and it works far better than other methods for conveying basic ideas(cultivating virtue, god is real, objective morality).

>>10941762
>It is the fruit of my labour
B is clearly a reference to Marx, you dumb fuck.

A is probably Aristotle, and C might be Sen or Nozick or some dumb shit like that.

If Child A can play the flute why doesn't she own her own fucking flute

>>10942060
>B is clearly a reference to Marx

Not if she supplied the materials (capital) for it herself. Its closer to Ayn Rand ironically

>>10941731
Child B should keep the flute. It is her property, she made it and provided the materials for it. Even if she doesn't learn how to play, it is immoral to take it from her without her consent. That is theft. And without any consideration for personal property, the flute (or any other thing) will be distributed according to the whims of an authoritarian arbitrator.

I think I cracked this (OC)

>>10941731

B, obviously. She made it, it's hers. She owns it. There is no fucking question about it.

Is this what philosophy is? Are you kidding me?

>>10942129
i love it when philosophy newfags think they know the answer to complex questions because of their naive gut insticts

if you had to debate your position you'd lose in a fucking minute

This is exactly why Plato banned the flute. I'd give them all a lyre.

>>10942124
kek

>>10942132
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

>>10942129
Yep, approximately 3000 years of philosophical tradition boils down to a bunch of retards asking stupid questions.

You got it Anon, go watch some TV as a reward

>>10942129
She doesn't own it, I do. Why would I give away what is mine?

>property
the flute belongs to whoever has it and can prevent it from being taken. right now that's me.
to whom I give it is solely up to me and is a largely arbitrary decision (more likely based off the children's amiability and not any of their spooky reasons)

My idea of "justice" in this scenario would be to leave it up to B to decide who gets the flute, because she made it and, more importantly, already owns it. If she decides to keep it to herself, I couldn't justify taking it from her against her will.

>>10942155
B is the one who has it.

>>10942124
Excellent

>>10942132
I love it when clowns like you think they themselves are somehow not philosophy newfags.

>>10942183
Thats not stated

>>10942178
>and, more importantly, already owns it

Not stated, what if she pawned it and you bought it yourself

>>10942188
It's implied in B's last line.

>>10941731
Kill all of them and take the flute for myself

>>10942192
She says that to give the flute to someone else would entail taking it from her. If you don't want to interpret this to mean that she currently has it, then fine. I lean towards B as the most justifiable owner regardless.

>>10941731

child B should sell it to child A

>>10942060
Why would it be Nozick?

>>10942195
You really don't have to kill three kids to take the flute from them.

>>10941731
Child B should get it, but she would be silly not to then sell it to Child A. Child C's sob story is gay though.

>>10942281
So what

Child C gets the flute because it does the most good by going to him. If child B made one flute then surely she could make another flute, perhaps even better than this one. And if child A already plays the flute they must have access to a flute, whether at school or through a relative. Perhaps they could even buy one of child B's flutes. Child C would never be able to have a flute without my intervention, since his need is the strongest he gets it.

>>10942303
now blow that logic up to billions of situations all over the place all the time

>>10942303
Why should he get it just by virtue of being poor? A flute is not a need. If it were food or even clothing, you might convince me, but a flute (that they can't even play btw) is hardly a need.

>>10941969
yeah. can't stand it either when those poor people steal another one of my fucking flutes

child b uses their gifts to keep creating flutes and eventually starts a proper business, hiring child c and giving them a wage and skills. child a dies poor and destitute because they chose the arts.

>>10942124

anyone who even THOUGHT giving the flute to child C should immediately off themselves.

>>10942124
Lmao

>>10942132
And this is why philosophy is trash for confused idiots. You immerse yourself in jargon and abstract hogwash and before long you're believing in all sorts of absurdities.

>>10942146
Philosophy is for fucking squares.

>>10942183
>>10942193
>How could you possibly take this from me
because you are a child and taking things from you is trivial (it's implied by the question that I'm at least able to take it and redistribute it "who would you give it to?")
>the flute belongs to whoever has it and can prevent it from being taken
>>10942155

the flute is a metaphor guys

>>10942363

>>10941760
>Punishing someone for creating something
Wow, so some day we can live in a world with no flutes. What a beautiful vision.

Anyone who doesn't say child A has fallen for the left/right meme and needs to go back and read the Greeks

>>10941731
All I see there is that one cunt decided to steal a flute from a child

>>10942132
>S-seriously guys, this question is really complicated. You have to spend at least 8 years in school before you can even begin to grasp how one should answer the stolen flute problem. No, I'm not projecting my lack of self-worth and confidence. I CHOOSE to be a virgin for philosophical reasons that you please wouldn't understand.

>>10942443
Yes, anyone who doesn’t take wealth away from the person who created it is a commie.

>>10942459
Giving the flute to child A allows her to create more wealth, unlike the other two. Why should simply creating wealth entitle you to keep it?

>>10942472
>Music
>Wealth
Also, why would child B ever be incentivized to create again if their creations can be taken with no compensation?

>>10942183
>can prevent it being taken
Don't tell me you don't steal from little girls anon.

>>10942478
I only steal one thing from little girls

>>10942480
Candy?

>>10941731
So Child B is Locke/Nozick, and Child C is a really watered down misinterpretation of Rawls, but I can't work out who Child A represents. Throw me a line, lit?

>>10942482
their vinnocence

>>10942483
Aristotle.

>>10942476
Well this specific example is a bit silly; I'm assuming child A is meant to represent a meritocratic stance where the person most likely to create future value with an asset is granted ownership over it.

As for your second point, I don't think people incentivized solely by the accumulation of personal wealth are conducive to positive outcomes in society. Look at the rise of neoliberalism, disaster capitalism etc. for examples of cases where the free market allows truly reprehensible outcomes. So frankly, I don't care if child B is further incentivized to create wealth; if she's the sort of person I want in society she should be incentivized anyways and if not she can sit on her ass and starve with child C.

>>10942483
Plato.

>>10942490
what's the problem with aristotle and flutes?

>>10942508
Plato hated flutes. Aristotle made the argument that things should be distributed by purposes, but as some kind of ancient in-joke he used flutes in the example. Fucking trolled.

>>10941886
Because they need a flute, silly.

>>10941731
why are the children talking like philosophy youtubers

>>10941888
Checked

Name 1 good flute song.

Case closed I take the flute away and break it to prevent anynore bickering over such a useless instrument.

>>10941873
>Child B should

>>10942652
>Name 1 good flute song.
AQUALUNG

>>10942326
fucking kek

>>10942652
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etOrYtQ3EGc

>>10942124
very good

>>10942038
kek

>>10941781
Denying denial, very impressive. I'll go one step further and deny your claims of denying denial in your post anon.

>>10942991
Shit was meant for
>>10941880

>>10942038
>Not realizing B is the Marxist option
It literally refers to the fruits of labor brainlet. You have to go back

>>10942074
>Worker controls the means of production
>This is actually full libertarianism
You're actually full retard

>>10941731
As an answer to your actual question, you should slowly introduce philosophy to them. I first started to learn about different forms of philosophy when I was about 17, I learnt mainly stuff that affected me at the time, such as me being heavily depressed, so I read about Albert Camus and his work with Sisyphus, and a few other things I liked. Then I listened to Podcasts and read works of Greeks and sophist and stuff. I believe the best way to learn about philosophy is with stuff that affects you at the time, or something similar. So take that into account

>>10943166
>hurr durr libertarianism is against a particular type of person owning capital
read a book, brainlet

Slit your throats, /pol/acks. That way you'll all have your own flute.

>>10942303
I don't have access to prime teen pussy because I spent my time on 4chan. My need is the strongest, gif me the girls

>>10942472
>Why should simply creating wealth entitle you to keep it?

I truly do not understand this line of reasoning. My impulse is to kill people that think like this because I don't see a way their minds could ever be changed. Is there a non meme source to investigate where this line of thinking comes from?

>>10942652
Any great composition that has a flute part at all?

Child A should have it, but only in exchange for some goods or services to child B. Maybe she can write a pretty song in thanks of child B

>>10941731
can't give it to all three to share?
B if I had to choose, she made it, she spent the money on it

>>10941731
B > A > C

Why am I the arbiter of the flute, anyway?

>>10941731
Don't read. Live according to your own nature.

C because welfare and taxes

>>10943157
B is Libertarian smoothbrain.

>>10942203
Because he hasn't actually read any of them and just picks the names out of memes he's seen spread around pol.

This is an optical illusion. You can only see OP's question if you already scrolled halfway down the thread.

>>10943479
>this is what lolbertarians actually believe
look up entfremdung

>>10941731
There are three relevant standards here:
1. Autonomy
2. Justice
3. Happiness

Giving to child A or C would make people happiest. But it would be unjust: limited property rights are something agreed upon by most people under a veil of ignorance. And it would be using child B as a means to an end which violates autonomy. So, I would typically give the flute to child B.

However, it would much lessen the sting of giving to child A or child C if child B was compensated for stealing the flute and lessen the harm which could possibly make giving to child A or child C reasonable. But I would invoke the rule of thumb that morality has to be specific here. Should the flute go to child A or C or indeed some other child? If there is no reasonable criteria to decide who obtains which goods then morality can not work to coordinate human behaviour. So, I would default to child B unless one can give reasonable means of deciding who else should get the flute.

>>10941731
Philosophy is the loss of innocence. Just leave them alone.

Children can figure out how to use a flute themselves.
I would refuse to instill a master-slave ethic in children. I would suggest that they all share the flute and it belongs to whoever is using it at the time, the kids will sort themselves out.
It would be completely retarded to teach these kids to be obedient to unjustifiable hierachal authority and bullshit conceptions like property ownership.
I would let them sort themselves out and learn to share, cooperate and organize themselves like actual human beans instead of whatever we are.
Adults are obligated to protect children, and they ought to be protected from degenerate social systems.

I confiscate the flute and hold in within escrow. I will mandate that A compensates B for the flute at a price determined by a formula devised by myself by a certain deadline. However C will be employed by myself to both determine the value of the flute, enforce and monitor the contract and maintain records. C will compensated by a portion of the monetary exchange between A and B. Also I receive a portion of the transaction.

If either A or B obstruct the process, the at fault party will be given a time-out and additional fees will be assessed by C then the mandate will be repeated until both parties comply.

>>10943572
Child C finds a brief moment of happiness in breaking the flute over his knee.

>>10943633
That's better than telling them what to do.
Child c will learn what it means to feel shame and endure social punishment. I doubt something like that would happen but all humans are capable of such things, me repressing that would stiffle development. Unless the children are in danger or are doing something seriously wrong, there is no reason to interfere.

>>10943632
>C will compensated by a portion of the monetary exchange between A and B. Also I receive a portion of the transaction.
The ol' Republic stick up? They never see it coming.

I keep them all for myself, im not a goddarn commie
Get off my yard, damn kids these days!

>>10941760
I thought /his/ was trash, but this board is a whole new landfill

>>10941731
no step on snek

>>10943337
Really? A child owns the megacorp?

>>10941764
>A is rightwing distopia
I dont know whats wrong with you, but playing "state" and redistributing products is certainly not rightwing.

>>10941731
Just give C the goddamn flute. If A can play the flute but she doesn't have one already then she is a lying bitch and B has already achieved her purpose with the process of manufacturing the flute, now she has no more use with it and should go on to make something better.

>>10943166

>>10943479
It's libertarian Marxism you mong. Children would never control the means of production in a libertarian society. Maybe if they were lucky and their dad was the owner of the flute industry

Jesus Christ people ITT need to read more.

Child A is a Marxist, B is a Capitalist, and C is a Suburban Socialist

>>10943729
How the fuck does Marx even play into it you drooling retard. Nowhere does this thought experiment mention who owns the tools and resources used to produce the flute.

>>10943737
Ever heard of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" you non-reading cum breather?

The embodied soul is eternal in existence, indestructible, and infinite, only the material body is factually perishable, therefore fight O children.

>>10943737
To all by their need
from all by their ability

>>10942074
>Materials (capital)
Liberal education, capital is not those materials, but the ownership of those materials, it is the value of owning those materials that is the market value placed on capital.
B is definitely socialist, not necessarily marxist.
>>10943166
>>10943337
>Ayn Rand, full on libertarian
>Somebody else owns your possessions, that's liberty
>Property ownership and capital accumulation are possible in a libertarian economy.
Wew lad.

*unzips dick
here's a flute for all three

>>10943754
>>10943759
>>10943729
>>10943479
Pictured: good old fashioned libertarianism that isn't even one bit socialist at all
Just read the fucking manifesto. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is one of the most important documents of the last century. Its free on the internet, it takes less than a couple hours to read, and you might even manage to spin up an interesting thought by engaging with primary sources.
Barring that, go the fuck back to wherever you came from

>>10943774
>capital is not those materials, but the ownership of those materials
that's fundamentally false. capital is by definition the means of production, it has literally nothing to do with ownership.

B for sure
No way for me to know if A will play it well enough for me to be content with giving it to her
B has earned her product by making it, if it is badly made she has only herself to blame for having a bad product on her hands. She can make a deal with A for it
C is what le fuck tier

>>10943799
>you dont need the boss
the whole key of capitalism/liberterianism is organization or free enterprise.

Are you kind of stuipid?

>>10943808
>Capital is by definition the means of production.
No it's not, capital is privately owned means of production.
You can't have capital if you don't have private property.
If you own a farm, it is only capital because you have exclusive, arbitrary authority over it. If you don't have exclusive economic ownership of the means of production you wouldn't have exclusive economic ownership of the commodities produced from it, the workers would have economic control of the fruits of their labor.
There are a lot of fish the ocean produces, you don't see investors throwing their money in the sea, you see them investing in privately owned fishing industries.

>>10941760
I have a PhD in economics and finance now give me your money, you do not know how to spend them in the best possible way

>>10943883
You would definitely be more fiscally responsible than 50% of the population AT LEAST. In fact, if people like you handled the money of the more impulsive, less disciplined population they might actually be able to function at higher levels within society.

Child B should have the flute and lease it to child A at a fixed rate, child C should be taught how to make flutes by Child B while she profits from child A's use of her product.

OP's picture is a perfect example of why philosophers are an insufferable waste of time.

This question has a clear and obviously correct answer. The flute should be RETURNED to the lawful owner - and if none of them are the lawful owner then clearly one of them is at least the lawful possessor.

These stupid fucking hypotheticals are ivory tower bullshit with absolutely no merit. Indulging them will have merit at the exact point in time when the problem is no longer hypothetical, and not before.

God I fucking hate "intellectuals."

Feel free to formulate your smug talking points in the time between when I throw you out the helicopter and when you hit the ground.

@10944012
(You)

>>10944019
Cry more, faggot.

>>10944012
Philosophy is fundamental to law you stupid retard.

There is no lawfull owner without a philosophical underpinning. That's why it's a nice example for high school level philosophy. Something you clearly lack the aptitude for.

>>10943903
If that was the case, fund managers wouldn't make risky thoughtless choices that yield no gains, while having their pockets filled with money from premiums.

>>10941731
B gets the flute as she made it, let her decide what happens to it, be it selling it to the one that can play, or even giving it to the brain dead poverty urchin

>>10944036
That's because they have a license to steal and no morals. They are model Capitalists.

Child A VIRTUEEEEEEE

>>10941731
Child B made the flute, so don't give it them, just don't take it off them. Encourage them to sell the flute to Child A, train and employ Child C with the profit of the sale to make more Flutes, and then Child C can pay Child A with the money to play the flute for him, or even teach him to play the flute if he wishes. This is how economics works now all of you kys.

OP try teaching them cool pop philosophy like Plato's cave or the tram experiment or whatever. Get them arguing and thinking about meta ethics, or get them to come up with a game and the rules of the game and discuss what makes the rules fair etc.
Then maybe just let them read? Bear in mind that the gen pop struggles with philosophy in the first place so don't expect much comprehension/engagement out of kids

>>10944032
>Philosophy is fundamental to law you stupid retard.
No it isn't.

Law is made by the parliament by the elected representatives of the people, usually with the input of senior lawyers in the community and public servants. Philosophers never enter into the process, except for "legal philosophers" who are in fact not philosophers at all, but rather technical experts.

None of the people involved in the formulation of laws - not the voters, not the politicians - know anything or care at all about philosophy.

You desperately need to believe that the stupid bullshit you waste your time with has relevance, like a HR office drone defending their paper-pusher job when the involuntary redundancies come around, and so you make up stupid shit to support your fantasy world.

>>10944012
Minors cannot legally make claim to property, thus you are the rightful owner of the flute and can dispose of it or grant possession of the flute to anybody, it will remain your property as the trustee of the flute.

>>10944054
not him but try and separate law and deontological ethics

>>10944012
>>10944054
This is why you get your kids to study philosophy. So they don't end up like this guy.

>>10941731
If child C has more talent latent within them than A, they should get the flute, if Child A has the most talent and Child B/C cannot surpass them, then they get the flute. If for some reason Child B is the most talented, or has the highest potential they get the flute. Whoever can best use the flute should get it, the person who made the flute, or the person who wants it the most is irrelevant. This is a fucking stupid way of arguing for or against property rights because it leaves out the role of the capitalist, with only the skilled expert, craftsman and dispossessed chandala being represented

>>10941731
There are grown adults that cannot handle philosophy. What possible benefit could giving it to children have? You'll just screw them up.

>>10944062
>Minors cannot legally make claim to property
That's not true. Children can own property in their own name.

>>10944063
>try and separate law and deontological ethics
I already have.

How can law have anything to do with philosophy if literally zero of the people involved in making or applying law are philosophers? Surely if law relied on philosophy we would need philosophers to assist with the administration of law?

This is where you retreat into the facile argument that "everything is philosophy!" because without painting with a brush so broad as to encompass the entire fucking world, thus rendering the whole concept of philosophy as a distinct thing which can be studied independent of other disciplines an impossible idea, you no longer have a defence.

The defendant is not a philosopher. The defence lawyer is not a philosopher. The prosecution is not a philosopher. The bailiff is not a philosopher. The judge is not a philosopher. The law is not a person, but the people who wrote it are not philosophers. The people who approved it are not philosophers. The people who elected the people who approved it are not philosophers.

Where, exactly, do the philosophers come in?

>>10941731
>socialists have dark hair

Why is this a thing? Not that i dislike it, n*rds can die off for all i care.

>>10944054
>>10944054
Yea retard, and these laws just pop up in these experts head with no reasons given, or cultural forces at play.

And philosphy is of course not the art of judging said reasons and understanding such forces. It's just a huge waste of time. Also, every country that has laws has parliament. And if a country has a law, it's automaticly justified.

You're a retard. And worse a technocrat.

>>10941731
Child A may have the flute, but she must play it all day for the pleasure of both Child B and Child C.
Child B must make more flutes, to share with more flute players, and she will never lack for beautiful flute music.
Child C must forage for materials to bring to Child B if he wants a flute, and perhaps one day he might even learn to play one.

>>10943709
All three are state you retard

>>10941731
Smack them with the flute over the head and send them to their rooms. Children should know who is the boss.

>>10944129
Now you're arguing that philosophers impact the lawmaking process because they alone determine the broader societal context in which laws are made?

Fucking ridiculous. A bunch of fucking faggots sipping lattes in university cafes might WISH that they had that much influence but it's a laughable proposition that I dismiss out of hand.

>the art of judging said reasons and understanding such forces
Then why, in 5,000 fucking years of recorded philosophy, have philosophers been unable to produce a single concrete judgment?

You call it an art because it's an unfalsifiable matter of opinion - i.e. the quintessential waste of time.

>>10944134
t. grade schooler

>>10941731
B owns it. There is no philosophical question here, if any other child had it it would be pure theft.

>>10944199
so you wouldn't publish your books because the publisher is the one who can print and promote them?

>>10944164
I holds the flute, I makes the rules.

>>10941738
B you nigger.

>>10942438
Exactly. This is how retards think.

>>10944159
So you think you should judge the field of philosophy by ' a bunch of faggots sipping latte's'?

That's a ridiculous strawman, and you're arguing dishonestly. Most philosophy mayors that I know go and have careers in public and national policy. These are graduates, so yea, the faggot undergraduates don't have any reall influence as I'm sure those chad law students have. Retard.

There have been plenty of concrete judgements in philosophy. But asking for some sort of begin and end al judgement in ethics is the same as asking a gymnast to make the begin and end all gymnastic sets. Asking that is missing the point of the field. Philosophy is about pushing our judgements to their limits, which is an open ended endeavor. Something that we as a society should do, and you as a person.

Because right now you're intelectually stunted. Kinda like a retard.

>>10941731
THE FLUTE MUST BE DIVIDED IN THREE PARTS AND EACH CHILD SHALL HAVE HIS SHARE!

>>10943883
If you have a PhD in economics, you're the last person who should have any money to administrate.

>>10944088
The metaphysics of law are where philosophy comes in. What people take as innate human knowledge comes from great thinkers of the past

>>10944051
This

>>10944159
>A bunch of fucking faggots sipping lattes in university cafes

this made me lol big time.

you're still wrong though, see >>10944289

I give the flute to child A, compensate child B, and beat child C for daring to complain.

>>10944088
Omg, you're such a retard. How do you envision a pure philosophy, which isn't a philosophy of x?

This is litterally the same as saying history is a sham, because nobody that acts is a historian.

>>10944289
>Most philosophy mayors that I know go and have careers in public and national policy.
Yet all the Executive Chief Directors and MPs have law or economics degrees.

It's a simple fact that philosophers have no influence. There is an unbroken chain of causality from the voter to the corrective services officer which involves zero (0) philosophers. They are as irrelevant to law and justice as sand on a beach.

They probably didn't tell you this in your undergrad courses, but you should have smelled something amiss when they kept telling you about ideas but not about their practical applications. What can you DO with your philosophical knowledge? Where is it RELEVANT? The answer is nothing and nowhere because nobody needs philosophers to tell them how to think. A judge doesn't need some ivory tower fuck leaning over his shoulder telling him how to write his judgment. What the fuck does some random philosopher know about the law anyway? You think your four years of abstract consideration is somehow on par with a judge's fifty years at the bar? Of course not. Philosophy is arrogance - it is the assumption that you don't need expertise to understand a field, and therefore any random fucking person's musings on complex problems like law and justice somehow, unaccountably, have merit.

What the fuck does a philosopher know about anything anyway?

>I'm sure those chad law students have
A single chad law student does more good for society on his Practical Legal Training placement than every virgin philosopher in all of human history combined.

>There have been plenty of concrete judgements in philosophy.
Name one (1).

>>10944311
>What people take as innate human knowledge comes from great thinkers of the past
Consider the following: "great thinkers" in philosophy do not discover new knowledge, they merely codify the popular "common knowledge" of the era.

>>10944331
I'm simply asking for someone to point to a field which regularly employs people with philosophy degrees to use their specialised skills to produce philosophical opinions which the field relies upon.

There are SOME fields that do this - scientific ethics committees in universities, for example - but lo and behold the people on such committees are not philosophers. They are scientists.

This is because the only places where philosophical discussions are relevant require specific experience in the field, which "philosophers" don't have. Coincidentally, this is why philosophers restrict their pronouncements to matters of principle and society-at-large instead of getting into concrete problems in specific domains. The second a philosopher tried to wade into a real philosophical discussion he would be revealed for the charlatan he is.

>>10944063
Not him but law and deontological ethics are quite different things.
Like, you could say that in theory they should be the same thing but in practice they are not.
Deontological ethics is based on absolute principles. Most of law is just a bunch of practical guidelines.
Law is externally enforced and it is by no means internally imperative.
You could say that abiding the law is a deontological principle but you can't really say that most secular laws are really deontological principles and laws in themselves are not inherently deontological.

>>10942326
but then who buys the flutes, thus making the business profitable?

>>10944159
this is hyperbolic hysteria, philosophers have explicitly influenced public policy, educational standards and the attitudes of the elite for thousands of years. Plato tutored Dion, pushing him to oust Dionysius of Sicily. Hegel had a marked effect on Marx (another philospher) and Hitler. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Hegel, Spengler, de Maistre all deeply affected Fascism. Cybernetics and analytical philosophy changed political policy, created think tanks and the school of the RAND nigger sociopaths. Dawkins and others made selfish genes a meme in public discourse. Philosophy will shift overton windows, cause people to speak and think differently. No scientific theory has every been proven beyond just doing activities that ostensibly render it useful. the standard for truth comes from Reason not utility. You’re basically just exposing ignorance of history. Economics, psychology, science are all just fields of philosophy which have become highly specialized. Formal logic led to mathematical logic.

>>10941888
s-so wise

>>10944424
Now we see the plebian philosopher reduced to hysterical ranting as his world collapses around him. Face with the prospect of no jobs and a life of impotent irrelevance he screeches about how his overly-flattering philosopher-centric interpretation of history is the only possible, objectively correct one (rather than a niche and very nearly objectively incorrect one); then he creates a false dichotomy of science versus philosophy to try and argue that you can't have one without the other.

The fact that you unironically suggest that Hitler listened and deeply considered the input of intellectuals and philosophers rather than just having dissidents sent to the camps suggests to me that the only person ignorant of history here is (You). To try and pretend that the Second World War was somehow the product of philosophers (and so you better respect them and their influence!) is just fucking ridiculous.

>Economics, psychology, science are all just fields of philosophy which have become highly specialized
Ah yes, this old meme. "It's a doctorate of PHILOSOPHY you fucking nerd so that means that you're still technically a philosopher and so I still technically win! HA HA SUCKED IN."

Science and philosophy have nothing in common. For starters, science is actually useful. That said, it's not one or the other. Scientists do utilise "philosophy" in the aforementioned scientific ethics committees. They just don't need fucking philosophers to do it for them. In fact, philosophers couldn't do it for them even if they were permitted to try, because studying philosophy is a waste of time that has no application whatsoever.

I'm done listening to your drivel. Enjoy the next two years of your "degree".

>>10944489
Honestly thinking the kapitalist communist dichotomy isn't at it's heart a philosophical problem. Some goes for the procedural and distributive theories of justice.

Like I said, philosophers actually get in very similar carreer paths as law students when it comes to public policy. But also outside of public policy.

>>10941738
FPBP
any other answer is communist filth

>>10944489

Did you realize that George Boole, a philosopher and logician, created the logic needed in the device that you are currently using to spout your shitty opinions?

>>10941731
The premise is faulty due to the improper use of a preposition. It is all a trick to distract us. The flute is irrelevant. There is some deeper conspiracy at hand.

>>10944418
Trendyfucks that want to want to be able to play but that never truly dedicate the necessary time to the endeavor - proving that they do not truly want to be able to play.

>>10942124
This may be the best version of this meme that I have seen.

>>10942132
Only a philosopher would think it's okay to steal something from the person who made it and give it to someone else. Only philosophers can suggest things that go against every notion of human decency.

>>10942132
>i love it when philosophy newfags think they know the answer to complex questions because of their naive gut insticts
>philosophy needs to be complicated and confusing to be relevant

>>10944735
>only a philosopher

What about liberals, leftists, communists, socialists and pretty much 99% of the world popular?

The flute is supposed to be a METAPHOR you fucking dolt.

>>10944735
if you think, you are... a philosopher that is

>>10944489
The fact that you suggest that the Jews dindunuffin shows a lot about you.

>>10941760
>>10941738
>>10941775
>>10944326
>>10944134
>>10942472
>>10943729
>>10943562
>>10941790
Child B should get it and sell it to Child A, brainlets

>>10944489
Philosophy is ego-inflating gibberish for confused narcissists, but there's no denying its impact on human history. How did the french revolution come to be, or where did the founding fathers get their ideas from?

>>10944787
>How did the french revolution come to be, or where did the founding fathers get their ideas from?
me want thing

Funny how everyone's debating the picture without answering OP's question. Also it's quite telling that a philosophical puzzle for kids managed to get so many replies. Goes to show the high intellectual caliber of /lit/.

>>10944853
It because OP is obviously talking about himself when he asks how to teach "children" philosophy without actually reading anything.

>>10941731
B, is there even a question?

>>10944853
it's like you've never been here before.

>>10941731
Why would you want to subject your kids to philosophy?

>>10944927
I never said it was my kids...

>>10944927
So they don't become bitter incels who weigh their self worth by thumbs ups, likes, etc.

>>10944938
You've got it all wrong chum.

>>10941731
Is the point of the flute to make music? For child B it clearly served some other purpose since child B could not have intended to make music on it. I don't get where child A is coming from. But also, I do not understand why child B made this flute to begin with except maybe to beat child C with.

by my superior ability and authority as elder, i came to possess the flute and am therefore making this decision. i won it through martial victory, it is my prize and i will take it home to further increase my renoun in my social group. might is right kiddo, try again next flute and hope im not around.

>>10942060
>B is clearly a reference to Marx, you dumb fuck

It's actually an obvious reference to Locke. Before you go calling someone else a dumb fuck, how about you pick up a book?

>>10941731
start the Socratic fire you idiot

>>10944149
how is B an action of distribution by an authority?

>>10944209
>giving something to someone is the same as stealing
I only visit /lit/ for a week, I didnt think I would encounter people who are even more stuipid then /pol/acks

>>10941731
1. you shouldn't post a question with an image more interesting than your question, especially as an OP
2. the same way you get them into anything, by using explanations and examples they understand and relate to, and if it's really important, giving them a temporary and tailored incentive to engage with the material

>>10941731
I'm leaning towards A for reasons that are hard to justify, but B makes the most sense personally
ideally though they'd just share the flute
it would be a more interesting question if C had something to contribute, such as being able to fix the flute (I've had one before, they have quite a few small moving parts)

>>10945470
>I agree with A because it's the most practical and logical
>But B makes sense because I am an entitled Boomer who "worked hard" for everything

heads: child B chooses who gets the flute
tails: let them decide by themselves

>>10941731 (OP)
Is the flute mine to give? If yes, then I'll probably give it to A or B (whoever is hotter) and then smell and taste the spit accumulated on lip plate after she's done playing it

>>10941731
Is the flute mine to give? If yes, then I'll lend it to A or B (whoever is hotter) so I can smell and taste the spit accumulated on lip plate after she's done playing it

>>10941731
Is the flute mine to give? If yes, then I'll lend it to A or B (whoever is hotter) so I can smell and taste the spit accumulated on the lip plate after she's done playing it

>>10941731
use pics and riddles

>>10941731
Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's world

>>10941731
Give it to myself, might makes right etc

>>10944159
Lmao holy shit

Child B, because any other option would be an immoral exploitation of the child's labor.

>>10944489
ok 8/10 this was decent
>>10944652
>>10944765
>>10944787
he's baiting, we all fell for brilliant bait.

*tips penis*

>>10941731
Firstly, I wouldn't give it to A. A loses nothing, if they know how to play a flute, surely they have other means of obtaining a flute. I'm tied between B and C, though. B spent time on the flute and deserves say on it's ownership, but C, if they were willing to learn to play, could benefit the greatest from obtaining the flute, since they could get out of poverty with it.

>>10945944
C is a little bitch who needs to get shot

>>10941731
i'd give flute to child A, tell B to fuck off and send C to the gulags

>>10941731
Give the flute to Child C and then use that a way to teach Child A and B a lesson. Child A will learn that being spoiled and entitled will get you no sympathies and Child B will learn to improve their craft to produce another flute and maybe even more than another flute so that all three can have one, further refining Child B's skills and talents while providing an overall means of happiness to the three children in the long run, however, this is an ideal.

>>10941731
>child a: female, can play the flute
>child b: female, can make a flute
>child c: male, useless lumpenproletariat piece of shit
what did they mean by that?

>>10941731
Assuming all the information given is all there is to the scenario, the flute belongs to child B\. Of the 3 children B is the only one who has invested material effort into the flute, and as there is no other means available to determine ownership (which is assumed as a given in the premise of this problem) the material connection to the object seems the most logical means of deciding ownership.

If we presume that child A or child C has better claim to the flute then we invalidate the material effort of child B. The flute was wholly a product of her effort, that is to say of her own will and action. If one cannot own even their own will and action then what can they own? It negates all notion of responsibility, for anything, and indeed invalidates the entire concept of ownership.

>>10946085
men are over sweetie

It's simple. Starve their families and ask if they would steal a loaf of bread to feed them.

>>10946085
did you just assume their fucking gender?

>>10945476
I'm 29, faglord
I don't agree with A because it's logical, I agree with it out of sentimental reasons, although you could argue it's the most practical in that the other options are a bit of a waste
also if you built something you wouldn't want to give it up either

>>10945810
what if A is actually a boy with long hair?

>>10941731
child b gets the flute and sells it to child a. the money she receives is taxed to provide funding for social programs which will benefit child c.

>>10945944
I started learning to play the flute when I was in elementary school
between having other things to do and my family not liking the noise of it I stopped most of my practicing and my music teacher ended up taking the flute back
I've never had another flute, because my family is poor
>isn't that just mixing up A and C?
yeah but A never said they weren't poor, and even if they're not you don't know the future
(full disclosure: my sister recently got a flute because she's been learning a lot of instruments and my family isn't as poor as we used to be)

>>10946122
>if you built something you wouldn't want to give it up either
Then who built the roads fuckface?

>>10946139
oh fuck, now the neighbours children are coming too

>>10946161
give them child C to appease them

>>10941875
unfortunately, you either don't have the gun, can't use the gun or aren't poor enough to be given one

B is the only sane option.

I kill myself, who am i to be a just judge? if i exist in a world in which i must choose am i really free at all?

>>10946145
A's hypothetical future poverty is merely that, a hypothetical, whereas C's extreme poverty is a known issue that needs to be addressed.

>>10946344
>needs to be addressed
Why?

>>10946357
why?

>>10946365
Yeah, why does it need to be addressed? Some people are poor. Would you deny the world music if it made rich all the poor living today?

>>10946384
why?

crash course philosophy

>>10944659
WHAT
Child B should get it by the homesteading principle. Anything you appropriate/modify from nature is yours; to imply otherwise is communism.

Have you even read Locke?

>>10941731
Child A b/c noble talent. Child B is a soulless kike for making something they don't even give a shit about. Prolly just looking for jew gold

>>10946089
Wrong. There are only so many people with inborn talents. There are millions upon millions of chinks who can make a flute, and if they refuse they can morally be enslaved b/c their inability to value something beyond it's material nature means that they are soulless automatons

>>10941888
how did this only get 3 replies. god tier

>>10946831
This guy gets it

>>10946806
you realise the guy in the pic literally believes in the gay cake principle, right?
in other words if the flute maker doesn't make dildo flutes for gays, they don't get to make flutes

>>10946831
craftsmanship takes great talent. it could be said it takes just as much talent to create a fine instrument than to play the thing.

>>10946864
If there weren't flute players, there would be no flute makers

The flute obviously belongs to B-ko, so why should she be unwillingly deprived of her property just because A-ko could make better use of it?

>>10946864
>Idk why this Mozart fellow is so popular, I created the damn piano!

>>10946884
You just gave the reason. You said A-ko could make better use of it. You used the word "better".

>>10946888
mozart was a composer, not a mere player of instruments

>>10946896
That doesn't give her any right to take something that doesn't belong to her. We don't even know what B-ko's motivation for making the flute is. Maybe she made it to sell it. Maybe she made it as a gift for somebody else. Maybe she just likes the way flutes look. Maybe she wants to learn how to play flute. At the end of the day, all that matters is who it rightfully belongs to, and it obviously rightfully belongs to B-ko.

B loans flute to A
A plays masterful music for audiences, gets money, eventually is able to pay back the loan and buy flute from B
Both A and B pay some taxes so C will eventually have his own flute

>>10941731
There's only one viable solution

Convince B to trade it to you for something else, give it to C and then ask/pay A to teach C how to play it

They're fucking kids. You can solve the problem with fucking jelly beans

>>10946908
By "give her any right to take" do you mean "be in the right to take" or are you invoking the concept of rights

>>10946908
>That doesn't give her any right to take something that doesn't belong to her
So you want to live in a soulless, artless, virtueless world full of people who own the rights to things they cannot use? Looks like you were born at the best possible time.

>>10946920
In the right to take. I assume that this scenario isn't happening under some kind of authoritarianism where individuals don't have rights, anyway. People should have the right to not have their property taken from them.

>>10946925
Nobody's stopping A-ko from obtaining a flute. B-ko's flute isn't the only flute that exists. A-ko can even make her own flute just like B-ko did.

>>10946910
Why do you tempt me?!

>>10946941
For a second I thought you said "authoritarianism where individuals have rights".
It would have made a bit more sense.

>>10946948
>A-ko can even make her own flute just like B-ko did.
Sorry anon, that flute design is the intellectual property of B-ko who is now going to sue you into poverty for having the gall to steal her idea, A-ko (and their community) doesn't even have the funds to challenge B-ko's legal team who have enough connections within the court system to ensure victory. That should teach those stupid A-ko's from thinking they have any freedom within this perfectly fair ideological system.

>>10946948
>Nobody's stopping A-ko from obtaining a flute
By taking it from B-ko.

>>10946864
In this case it's an inferior talent since it's purely material, and therefore unworthy of compensation. If B also played the flute and created the flute out of love for music I'd agree though.

>>10944291
underrated post

none of them should get the flute until they can learn to cooperate

>>10947010
>craftsmanship is purely material
You may as well say music is purely material since it's played on material instruments

>>10947046
Damn dude, you somehow lowered the bar for 4chan posts.

>>10947069
How is craftsmanship a purely material talent? You are literally bringing into the world forms that weren't there before

>>10947097
>You are literally bringing into the world forms that weren't there before
Jesus Christ, you never even read the Greeks??

>>10947102
By craftsmanship do you solely mean the reproduction of things that already exist?

>>10947113
Seriously dude, read the Greeks before you try talking about philosophy.

>>10941889
What a fucking retort. Well done.

>>10941731
I let them fight over it and allow nature to decide.

>>10946836
you ruined it

>>10947021
repost, same ref subtly made twice before

>>10941731
Ask B to rent it to A for a fee. While A is playing the flute, have B hire C to make flutes and pay C 1% of the profits from flute making. All children get their needs met and B gets a little more for not being a greedy dumbass.

>>10946868
If there were no flute makers, there'd be no flute players.retard

>>10941731
The strongest child who can hold on to the flute, can keep it.

>>10941731
The worst part is that child A fags ignore a simple truth: they are kids, and child A is not a genius, probably that bitch had a few school lessons and she thinks she's hot shit. Well, she's not. You know what? Fuck you. If we are going to think that way then I will fuck you all you fucking immature pieces of trash: I am an adult so I am stronger than both 3 kids and I play the flute better than them. I am the only one worthy to keep that fucking flute which probably doesn't even sound well because a fucking piece of trash kid made it and she doesn't even know how to play it, let alone the necessary mechanics of it to make every single tone work properly.

I keep the flute, and whoever challenges my claim over it gets a bitchslap for being an entitled, tone deaf little shit.

>>10941731
Child B sells the flute to Child A. That plays the flute for Child C and charges C a piece of candy for every song.