All Smiles In Miami for Hanley Ramirez & Dodgers

Hey, so, remember when I took your job?

For five innings, tonight’s kickoff to the East Coast road trip seemed like it’d be “same old Dodgers”. Clayton Kershaw had been outstanding other than making one mistake that Justin Ruggiano crushed into stands – one pitch after Kershaw had arguably struck Ruggiano out, it could be said – yet with Mark Buerhle cruising, Kershaw was down 1-0 and looked to be headed to a tough loss. With the exception of that one pitch, Kershaw had retired every other Marlin, but once again had found little support from his teammates.

But in the sixth inning, Kershaw’s luck finally changed. Shane Victorino led off with a double, and after being sacrificed to third by Mark Ellis, Matt Kemp doubled in the first run. (I’ll note here that while I laughed at the bunt at the time, since Victorino was already in scoring position and would have easily scored on the Kemp hit, I’ve been pretty upfront about how little I think of Ellis, so maybe trading the base for the out wasn’t such a bad idea.) Hanley Ramirez followed with his second of three hits on the night to drive in Kemp, and after an Andre Ethier strikeout – and I’m choosing to ignore his 0-4 tonight and continuing futility to enjoy the victory – our usual punching bag Juan Rivera followed with a two run blast over the left field wall. Kershaw suddenly enjoyed a three-run lead, and while each side would score once more, the Dodgers held on comfortably to take the first game of the series.

For Ramirez, the game marked a triumphant return in front of a lukewarm Miami crowd, even if two of his hits were more well-placed balls which combined to go about 80 feet on the fly rather than lasers. Hey, all looks the same in the box score, right? I would be remiss, I suppose, if I didn’t point out that not only did Rivera provide the big blast, James Loney made a fantastic play as a defensive replacement in the eighth. I’m not sure if that’ll make up for the karma we’ve earned throwing all that negativity at them – of course it won’t, nor should it – but at least it’s nice to see them add anything for once.

On the whole, Dodger pitching allowed only four hits to the hapless Marlins, and I would invite anyone who still claims that Kershaw is somehow failing to live up to his reputation to look at his game log over the last two months; save for that one disaster in St. Louis, he’s been repeatedly fantastic.

383 comments
WBBsAs
WBBsAs

In a nod to realism, this morning's SF Chronicle (print edition) places the Dodgers ahead of the Gnats in the standings.

Deuce (is loose)
Deuce (is loose)

Enjoyed perusing the discussion you guys had last night.  It's nice to know that differing world views can be talked about respectfully.  That's how learning occurs.  Thanks, phattonez, for doing your part to debunk the idiotic stereotype that those who believe in God are narrow-minded and stupid.

WilsonFonastyFoShow
WilsonFonastyFoShow

Good morning everybody!

Everyone: Hi Dr. FoNasty...

What a great game eh? The double connected to the bunt. The sacrifice connected to double. The second double connected to my wrist watch... uh oh.

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

Alright, i'm out. i already have a caffeine headache. 

Fun speaking with you all. 

MSTIer: Jake
MSTIer: Jake

ok well i got far too little reading done, hopefully we can do this again sometime. I enjoyed the discussion. hopefully we can all do this again sometime when i have another important question, until then, goodnight

Tired Math Cat
Tired Math Cat

Hey, Mike. I have an idea. Why don't we make an IRC channel. That way we can separate thread conversations. MSTI, with two primary sub categories, "Baseball" and "Not Baseball". 

MSTIer: Jake
MSTIer: Jake

 @phattonez7 are there such things as moral facts? this is how this entire discussion from before, then with my friend, then back here and so on began. I think I know what you will say, but Im still curious

WBBsAs
WBBsAs

 @Deuce They may not be stupid per se, but more often than not they're willfully ignorant.

WBBsAs
WBBsAs

 @JohnM If god(s) existed, they would kneel in front of Richard Dawkins.

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

 @JakeHorvitz haha, try to ask something less controversial next time!

 

(jk, ask what you want. we'll do our best. I enjoy this stuff too). 

MSTIer: Jake
MSTIer: Jake

 @SCruzDodgers noo, this is the late late show where we discuss some baseball but mostly not, during daytime we discuss baseball

Deuce (is loose)
Deuce (is loose)

I'm sorry that's been your experience.  Mine has been that all people of all world views and faiths can be willfully ignorant.

WBBsAs
WBBsAs

 @Deuce People should outgrow fairy tales no later than early adolescence.

Nonfactor
Nonfactor

 @phattonez7  @The_Real_Paul  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers Also interesting to note that as a student of Wittgenstein her moral philosophy addresses the impact of language on morality in a pretty novel way (moral language serves as a kind of bridge between human reason and human experience, in my opinion).

Nonfactor
Nonfactor

 @phattonez7  @The_Real_Paul  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers You're right. It is a bit too dogmatic. I think the time is getting to me. I'll need to read up more on Aristotelian ethics and find my old notes on the subject for the next time we talk about this, but I remember G.E.M. Anscombe writing very eloquently on the topic in "Modern Moral Philosophy" if you're interested in checking out virtue ethics in the meantime.

Tony Fernandez (MSTY Most Informative Poster)
Tony Fernandez (MSTY Most Informative Poster)

 @Nonfactor  @The_Real_Paul  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers "We know what is good and it is human happiness/fluorishing". This seems too simple/presumptuous. It would in the end seem to devolve to some kind of hedonistic utilitarianism which would still reject any absolute moral truths.

 

The part that is most repugnant to me is just throwing out Aristotle and saying we know what is right by experience and reason, and then not proving it. Maybe you could direct me to something to read that has a little more meat to it, so to speak?

Nonfactor
Nonfactor

 @phattonez7  @The_Real_Paul  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers The quoted part of your article sounds to me like Aristotelian ethics cloaked in the language of religious, moral objectivity. We know what is good and it is human happiness/flourishing (eduaimonia). We know this by reason and experience, but what is good is not what brings happiness alone or what brings flourishing to the greatest number of people, but is rather determined by the situation and how it interacts with reason towards the end of human happiness.

 

But what's good is not always obvious and this speaks to the complexities of human experience and the processes of human reason.

MSTIer: Jake
MSTIer: Jake

 @The_Real_Paul  @phattonez7  @SCruzDodgers ugh, well then in this case phatonez differs from my friends. they say god created moral objectives to guide humanity independent of human reason. I guess you guys say that the objectives exist but not because of god. Im confused

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

 @phattonez7  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers I'm sort of in the same boat. i've read a lot about ethics. Everything from Mill to Neitzche, Aristotle, and even Rand, but at the end of the day, I just try to mind my own business, be nice to people, and have a good life, and that seems to be working alright for me.

Tony Fernandez (MSTY Most Informative Poster)
Tony Fernandez (MSTY Most Informative Poster)

 @The_Real_Paul  @JakeHorvitz  @SCruzDodgers Oh I know, it's not nearly a complete system. I was actually just reading a very pertinent quote about that.

 

"This does not mean – or should not mean – grounding morality in arbitrary divine commands or threats of eternal damnation.   To be sure, in my view there certainly are such things as divine commands and eternal damnation.  But (again, at least from an Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law perspective), the content of the moral law is not determined by some arbitrary decree (it is determined by human nature, which even God cannot change), and the rational motive for acting morally is not fear of punishment (it is rather the motive of fulfilling our nature and thus attaining happiness, toward which end practical reason itself is directed by nature).  Conceiving of God as a kind of cosmic Saddam Hussein and of the universe as a Baathist police state is no way to ground morality, and it is not how a writer like Aquinas does ground morality.  That is the vulgar atheist’s caricature of theological ethics, not the real McCoy."

 

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/06/singer-in-state-of-flux.html

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

 @JakeHorvitz  @phattonez7  @SCruzDodgers sounds like a bit of a non sequitur. I don't think appealing to God solves anything morally, because it just replaces a complex topic with an even more complex one. We have to deal with morality on its face. 

Nonfactor
Nonfactor

I see Virtue/Aristotelian Ethics as a kind of middle ground between absolute moral truth and subjective moral truth. It's a kind of practical morality that I think makes complete sense (e.g. 'it's wrong to cut off somebody's leg, unless you're doing it in order to save their life).

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

 @JakeHorvitz  @phattonez7  @SCruzDodgers I don't believe that there's some god that defines moral truths and judges us based on them. i think moral truths are a product of admitting that morality has certain ends that ought to be achieved. though i guess you could dispute those ends, but that's a huge can of worms. 

Tired Math Cat
Tired Math Cat

 @phattonez7  @JakeHorvitz no absolute moral truths. Every situation is unique and should be handled differently. Unless you're talking about engineering ethics, in which case you must follow the standards of engineering or restart an entire design because the best teacher engineering at UCSC gave it a dirty look.

Paulstralia
Paulstralia

 @JakeHorvitz  @phattonez7 I told you that moral relativism is rejected most moral philosophers because it's basically no better than admitting that there's no such thing as ethics. It leaps from the observation that different cultures have different moral systems to the conclusion that none of them are BETTER than others. I mentioned utilitarianism as one proposed ethical system along with egoism, altruism, deontilogicalism, and various religious systems. I didn't tell you which ones I find compelling because I don't want to influence your research of these systems. 

MSTIer: Jake
MSTIer: Jake

 @phattonez7  @SCruzDodgers ha im getting confused in the termonology too, do moral truths exist independently is what im asking. I thought u said yes there are, but then scruz confused me too

Tired Math Cat
Tired Math Cat

 @phattonez7  @JakeHorvitz What? No standardized ethics?! Come on! We have rules we must follow! How are we to judge one another without them?! (I'm being sarcastic, and I agree with you).