The main problem with your interpretation is that none of the texts that you have provided support it, and this is because Kant is explicit that the "Kingdom of Ends" is only an ideal, or in your quote, "merely possible." If it were more than an ideal and it were—as you seem to conceive it—an actualizable utopia, then all of the problems I have pointed out would come to bear. In that case the utopian end-state would be liable to justify the sort of violence you have in mind, all in order to achieve it. — Leontiskos

To address this first point you make that Kant's notion of a Kingdom of Ends is only (an inconsequential?) ideal, this parer, which I previously referenced, argues otherwise. An excerpt from "III. Politics and the Ultimate Goal of Human History":

A cursory reading of these essays is sufficient to reveal that Kant's interest in political his­tory was an in­tentional application of his overall Transcendental Perspective[17] to the final (i.e., ultimate) problem of the end or destiny of the human race. The essays rarely give an account or inter­pre­tation of any specific historical events. Instead, as their very titles suggest, they pose ques­tions about the necessary form of human history, such as: What was the "Conjec­tural Beginning of Human History"? (1786), "What is Enlighten­ment?" (1784), "...Is the Human Race Constantly Progressing?" (1798), and What is "The End of All Things"? (1794). Kant's goal, in other words, was to discover an "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective" (1784) which could bring "Perpetual Peace" (1795) to humanity through a full realization of the highest good. — Palmquist, Stephen (October 1994) 'The Kingdom of God Is at Hand!' (Did Kant Really Say That?). History of Philosophy Quarterly. 11 (4): 421–437. ISSN 0740-0675. JSTOR 27744641

I'm curious as to what references or arguments you have that dispel the argument this paper makes.

According to your source such interpretations are certainly atypical, deviating from the received view. Still, none of the sources you cite are promoting your view that it is necessary to resort to violence to bring about a Kingdom of Ends. That strikes me as a grievous departure from Kant. — Leontiskos

I find that you, inadvertently or not, have often strawmanned the arguments I've make. Which makes this conversation with you quite unpleasant. For example, I don't recall every saying "it is necessary to resort to violence" but only that the use of violence within certain contexts can be the right/good thing to do as a means of optimally approaching the Good - "necessity" having nothing to do with it. This in comments such as the following:

Again, given the exact same distal intent of, say, minimizing harm and maximizing harmony, the use of violence as means of obtaining this very same distal intent can be simultaneously right in proximal application (wherein far greater harm/disharmony is thereby avoided) and yet remain wrong in distal terms (for an absolute harmony cannot be of itself produced via violence); — javra

I am furthermore not in this thread regurgitating Kant's thoughts. But have instead made reasoned argument for oughts and ought nots given an intended proximity to the Good as ultimate end, for which Kant's notion of the Kingdom of Ends was intended to serve only as one possible example among others.

----------

You so far seem dead-set against the use of any measure of controlled violence in any context whatsoever, thereby, for example, condemning all police officers all all soldiers to immorality ... as though such ought to be viewed as evil rather than, at least on occasion, heroic. If I am, to what extent am I wrong in this appraisal?

To minimize harm and maximize harmony is obviously not the same as treating everyone as an end in themselves. — Leontiskos

While I'm waiting for your reply: This quote addresses means, but not the stipulated end of "minimizing harm and maximizing harmony" which, as end pursued, would be more properly expressed as "a state of being wherein harm is minimal, if at all yet present, and harmony is maximal, if not ubiquitously applicable". An idealized future state of being as that intended which, by my best appraisals of your previous statements, you deem to be different in nature to that state of being Kant terms "the Kingdom of Ends". *

But again, I'm waiting to discern what you interpret Kant to mean by the term "Kingdom of Ends" ... such that it, as realm of being, is not equivalent to a realm wherein minimal harm and maximal harmony is actualized.

-----------
*

While I know this is in no way definitive, here is an online reference I picked up from Wikipedia which, in short, addressed Kant's Kingdom of Ends as the ultimate goal of humanity. Here is Wikipedia's summary of it:

In his writings on religion, Kant interprets the Kingdom of God as a religious symbol for the moral reality of the Kingdom of Ends. As such, it is the ultimate goal of both religious and political organization of human society.[1] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends#Overview

That presented, potentially far more importantly, here are excerpts from the SEP article "Kant's Moral Philosophy; 14. Teleology or Deontology?". To keep things short, following are first sentences from the last three paragraphs of the section:

A number of Kant’s readers have come to question this received view, however. Perhaps the first philosopher to suggest a teleological reading of Kant was John Stuart Mill. In the first chapter of his Utilitarianism, Mill implies that the Universal Law formulation of the Categorical Imperative could only sensibly be interpreted as a test of the consequences of universal adoption of a maxim. [...]

There are also teleological readings of Kant’s ethics that are non-consequentialist. Barbara Herman (1993) has urged philosophers to “leave deontology behind” as an understanding of Kant’s moral theory on the grounds that the conception of practical reason grounding the Categorical Imperative is itself a conception of value. Herman’s idea is that Kant never meant to say that no value grounds moral principles. [...]

It is of considerable interest to those who follow Kant to determine which reading — teleological or deontological — was actually Kant’s, as well as which view ought to have been his. A powerful argument for the teleological reading is the motivation for Herman’s proposal: What rationale can we provide for doing our duty at all if we don’t appeal to it’s being good to do it? [...] — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#TelDeo

My main point to these quickly produced references being, what you have taken to be "my view" is neither idiosyncratic nor original in its analysis of Kantian ethics.

(Still interested in what you interpret Kant's Kingdom of Ends to signify to Kant.)

Therefore your question makes no sense to me. — Leontiskos

Got it.

And according to you in which way does Kant use the term Kingdom of Ends?

Your answer does not answer my question, but instead seeks to analyze Kant's true intentions.

There are quotes such as:

Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends.
— Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

But the issue remains.

What is the difference between the end of "minimizing harm and maximizing harmony" and Kant's Kingdom of Ends?

Means toward the end of "minimizing harm and maximizing harmony." — Leontiskos

And how do you view this stipulated end as differing from Kant's Kingdom of Ends?

Now if you rewrite your system and say that you're only trying to "minimize harm and maximize harmony," then these two things which were formally ends now become means. — Leontiskos

OK, If indeed now only means, means toward what?

Here is what I said:

The problem is that your system contains internal contradictions, and framing Kantianism in terms of consequence-ends is already a contradiction that Kant would not have accepted. These contradictions are producing further contradictions, such as the idea that violence is compatible with a "Kingdom of Ends." — Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Am I mistaken in understanding the quote to conclude that my arguments make use of contradictions? And does not a contradiction require that incongruent givens simultaneously occur in the same respect?

As to Kant’s Kingdom of Ends not being an intent (hence: aim, end, or else intended consequence) that Kant endorsed via his system of deontology … I do find great difficulties in accepting this position as true, rather finding this very position as contradictory to Kant’s very affirmations.

So, for example, on your scheme violence is simultaneously right and wrong. It is right qua survival and it is wrong qua using-another-as-a-means. The problem is that your principles are not necessarily in sync, and in certain cases they oppose one another (and lead to perplexity). So you could do what most perplexity-views do and weight your principles, but before that you would need to admit that you have two principles in the first place (i.e. that "survival" is distinct from a prohibition on violence).

It doesn't matter that something is not right and wrong in the same respect; such is not needed to produce perplexity. It only matters that something be simultaneously right and wrong. — Leontiskos

Perplexity does not equate to the occurrence of contradictions, which is what I addressed. Moreover, most who will uphold that the use of violence is in an ultimate sense wrong/bad will be in no way perplexed when watching an action movie as to whether it is right/good for the police officer or soldier to rescue the innocent captive from the terrorist via the controlled use of violence or threat of violence. In parallel, this just as most will not find anything perplexing about a firefighter setting controlled fires so as to combat an arsonists fire. Furthermore, neither of these two examples require competing goals, instead being quite possible to accomplish via the one intent of minimizing harm.

I’ve already explained how this can occur, but you so far seem to deem those explanations to invoke contradictions. Yet an affirmation of X does not of itself justify X being true. And I so far find no contradictions in what I’ve previously stated: Again, given the exact same distal intent of, say, minimizing harm and maximizing harmony, the use of violence as means of obtaining this very same distal intent can be simultaneously right in proximal application (wherein far greater harm/disharmony is thereby avoided) and yet remain wrong in distal terms (for an absolute harmony cannot be of itself produced via violence); therefore being simultaneously right and wrong but in different respects.

And again, I so far don’t see much point to further debates on this matter due to the impasses between us just expressed.

Our ability to reason, feel, understand, experience the world in all its qualitative richness is a matter for analysis entirely beyond the reach of evolution in a qualitative analysis. — Astrophel

I can very much respect this point of view in certain respects - especially when it comes to interpretations such as those of Social Darwinism. Nevertheless, I could present the case that the metaphorical bouncer at the bar is the constraints of objective reality itself, such that that life with is most conformant to objective reality (else least deviates from its requirements) will remain present to the world. But I'm not sure if this very abstract way of thinking about evolution is a worthwhile avenue to here investigate - especially since it makes use of the notion of an objective world which, on its own, can be a very slippery thing to identify. Yet tentatively granting this, it will be true that the possibilities of what can be will be qualitatively indeterminant, but this only in so far as these myriad possibilities nonetheless yet sufficiently conform to objectivity. Hence, as one physiological example, why there has never been an animal with binocular vision whose eyes are vertically (rather than horizontally) aligned: such positioning would be contrary to the objective world's constraint of needing to optimally detect stimuli against the horizon (best short example I could currently think up).

I've also just posted to Wayfarer. The second paragraph in that reply, to me at least, presents the case that some of what makes us human is intimately entwined with our evolution from other primates. This, namely, as per our human smile. Curious to know what you make of it.

Or maybe none of those questions are scientific questions per se but philosophical questions prompted by scientific discoveries. — Wayfarer

I will second this affirmation. One’s either consciously held or else unconsciously maintained metaphysical presuppositions will guide how one makes sense of the empirical data regarding evolution. Yes, there’s the Young Earther museums where humans are depicted as cohabiting Earth with dinosaurs but, more seriously, the very issue of whether there is any real stochasticity in the cosmos will in turn determine whether one believes either that evolution could only have resulted in the lifeforms that it has or, otherwise, that evolution could have resulted in a tree of life very different to the one we currently know of. Likewise, whether or not evolution tends toward any certain end will in large part be contingent on whether one finds a teleological cosmos at all possible, which is an issue of philosophy rather than of science.

One point I will note, is that the strictly scientific attitude to h. sapiens treats them - or us - as another species, as an object of scientific analysis. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but when that begins to serve as the basis for philosophical or (anti)religious ideologies then it oversteps the mark, and where the science begins to morph into scientism: — Wayfarer

Very true. I nevertheless yet find natural selection to be very intertwined with much of the human phenotype, behavioral as well as physiological. As an undergraduate I did some independent research (with human participants) regarding the evolutionary history of human non-verbal communication via facial expressions. Specifically, back then there was a prevalent notion among ethologists and cognitive scientists alike that the human smile evolved from out of the primate fear-grimace (in short, we smile so as to show fear and thereby appease those we smile to, taking away presumptions of aggression, and thereby reinforcing friendships). The experiments I conduced gave good reason to support the conclusion that our human smile evolved from the primate play-face (in short, an exposing of weapons (for primates these being teeth and esp. canines) in playful mock-aggression—basically, this with the intent of expressing “I’ve got you’re back” when done not as a laugh but as a sincere smile). The details will not be of much use here (though I relish them), but the issue remains: either way, our human smile (and, for that matter, all our basic and universally recognizable human facial expressions) evolved from lesser primate facial expressions, and together with the expressions so too the emotions thereby expressed. Although this does not play into human’s far superior magnitudes of cognition, it does illustrate just how intimately many a defining feature of being human is associated with our biological past from which we’ve evolved as a species. Hard to think of a more prototypically cordial human image than that of a smiling face.

Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that!

There is of course many a diverse creation myth worldwide that explains the origins of the world as it currently is, often via what is relative to the culture some form of axis mundi. Still, to the best of my current knowledge, only in the West are there creation myths regarding the origin of existence of itself, this so as to affirm that time had a beginning. There’s the primordial Chaos of Ancient Greco-Roman religions and, or course, the Abrahamic religions’ notion of creation ex nihilo by a supreme incorporeal psyche that dwells beyond time. (Both in terms of how they are commonly interpreted.) I’m so far thinking the two creation myths of Buddhism you’ve addressed yet present a beginningless eternity of time? Please let me know if you know them to be otherwise … such that they specify a beginning to time's occurrence. Interesting stuff to me.

This corresponds to 'no edges' (in space). If existence (i.e. everything that exists) is the effect, then its cause (i.e. origin) is non-existence (i.e. nothing-ness that is also the absence of any conditions for any possibility of existence) – which is nonsense, no? — 180 Proof

Well said.

----

As a general apropos to possible religious/spiritual views, Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now.

Right - but isn’t there some sense in which even the simplest life forms act intentionally? Not consciously, of course - but a living thing by definition seeks to maintain itself and continue to exist. So I wonder if in some abstract sense whether that adds up to a very primitive intentionality. — Wayfarer

Yes, good point. This is where philosophical issues enter the picture ... the problem of other minds applied to real world applications regarding lesser lifeforms, this all the way down to prokaryotic monocellular organisms. And once you get to this juncture, there then is no rationally easy divide between monocellular organisms and the individual somatic cells of a multicellular organism, to include individual neurons to boot.

I've read Thompson's Mind in Life, but don't recall him addressing intentions per se. Maybe someone else with better recollection can chip in here.

In short, however, though I have my biases of opinion which lead me to the conclusion that there is at the very least some minuscule measure of intentionality in all life, I don't know of any means to properly justify this. Again, it relates to the problem of other minds as pertains to lifeforms whose awareness types are quite alien to us.

I will however say that I cannot conceive of intention occurring devoid of an intended goal, this as done by a consciousness or not. The two - an intention and its intent - go together like "unmarried" and "bachelor". And this intending of a goal, to me at least, necessitates forethought of one type or another - however alien such forethought might be to our own - and, hence, as per Thompson, some at least rudimentary kind of mind. Ameba can, for one extreme example, be observed to behave in such manners: intending to consume smaller amebas as their prey and to avoid larger amebas as their predators, and exhibiting forethought regarding what they perceive as other in the process - obviously, this devoid of any CNS. (Ameba have also be evidenced capable of learning new behaviors, which again to me logically necessitates some form of forethought.) But, also obviously, this is far removed from modern day consensus on what in fact is the case.

With all that stated, I'll also mention the following for the kick of it: I have at times pondered the possibility that the very primitive intentionality you've addressed might conceivable occur within every single neuron building new synapses for the sake of stimulation and nourishment. Such that the neuron's nucleus holds some, again, exceedingly primitive intentional role in the firing of its axon subsequent to sufficient dendritic stimulation. On one hand is sheer sci. fi., but on the other it's one extreme of where this allowance for all life being in some way intention-endowed, and thereby intentional, goes.

I've rambled a bit, but in my defense its very late at night where I'm at. :smile:

Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel

That all evolution is in essence entirely accidental is a mischaracterization of evolution via natural selection. In short, NS is the favoring of certain varieties of lifeforms by natural constraints—such that this metaphorical favoring by Nature is itself not a matter of chance. The following is a more longwinded but robust explanation that to me amounts to the same:

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation of traits, both genotypic and phenotypic, exists within all populations of organisms. However, some traits are more likely to facilitate survival and reproductive success. Thus, these traits are passed onto the next generation. These traits can also become more common within a population if the environment that favours these traits remain fixed. If new traits become more favored due to changes in a specific niche, microevolution occurs. If new traits become more favored due to changes in the broader environment, macroevolution occurs. Sometimes, new species can arise especially if these new traits are radically different from the traits possessed by their predecessors.

The likelihood of these traits being 'selected' and passed down are determined by many factors. Some are likely to be passed down because they adapt well to their environments. Others are passed down because these traits are actively preferred by mating partners, which is known as sexual selection. Female bodies also prefer traits that confer the lowest cost to their reproductive health, which is known as fecundity selection. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

---------

Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way?? — Astrophel

While @wonderer1 will speak for himself, for my part, not everything that can be teleological will necessarily be intentional, i.e. due to the intentions of agents. Gene mutations, here assuming a teleological cosmos to begin with, will then be an example of such.

That stated, the more intelligent the lifeform the less genotype will play a direct role in the lifeform’s successful survival and reproduction—and, by extension, in natural selection. It is not genotype but phenotype (which will include behavior, and which is heavily dependent on environmental history, typically coined “nurture”) that determines which carnivore gets to eat sufficient herbivores so as to then reproduce, and which herbivore gets to sufficiently evade carnivores so as to then reproduce. And the more intelligent the phenotype, the more intentions will play a significant role in this very process wherein certain varieties of lifeforms are favored by natural constraints.

As to different varieties of lifeforms emerging from intentions, there is sexual selection at play in the animal kingdom (as well as in at least some plants and fungi) and, more recently, it’s been proposed to occur in bacteria as well. Wherever one deems for intentions to start in the evolutionary tree, intentions will then logically play a role in evolution via sexual selection—this such as in terms of which variations of lifeforms get to come about in the next generation.

If someone had constant thoughts and fantasies about raping, torturing, killing etc people that they may or may not enjoy but were perfectly moral in the real world (either for its own sake or from fear of consequences of acting on said fantasies) is it reasonable to describe such thoughts as evil?

What about describing the person as evil in nature even if they never act on them?

Is this a sound moral judgement or just thought crime? — Captain Homicide

I find that the OP muddles the issue by not differentiating between different types of thoughts a consciousness can be aware of.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of causal determinism, thoughts tout court can and should be minimally classified into two varieties: a) those of one’s own mind that appear to one as a consciousness involuntarily and b) those that one as a consciousness voluntarily enforces within their own mind if not also at least in part creates. Memories, for one example, take on this dichotomy: some are involuntarily remembered (as one extreme, such as can occur in post-traumatic stress disorder where the consciousness remembers things even though not wanting to so remember), and some are voluntarily searched for and thereby brought up to consciousness, i.e. are voluntarily re-called.

Involuntary thoughts can in turn then generally be voluntarily reinforced or else voluntarily shunned. One has a negative involuntary thought X; does one succumb to it and thereby consciously endorse it or else deem it bad/wrong and thereby distance oneself from it?

To deem this very choice-making (be it one of free will or not)—choices regarding which thoughts are right/good and thereby to be upheld and which are wrong/bad and thereby to be discarded—irrelevant to issues of morality is to maybe all too inadvertently remove all a psyche’s conscious intentions as to what ought to be from all accounts of ethics. And—for one example—without intentions mattering ethically, there could then be no ethical difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and outright murder.

Otherwise, the thoughts one voluntarily chooses to think and thereby endorses are a staple aspect of what one is morally responsible for. Especially when considering that thoughts regarding what one ought to do predispose one for so voluntarily doing. So that the person with recurrent involuntary bad thoughts that voluntarily rebels against all such will be virtuous in character, whereas the person which voluntarily reinforces the involuntary thought of, for example, “I ought to kill all people of type A because they look funny” will not be (even if their circumstances never result in their so murdering).

Other examples could be given, but I so far think they all can be addressed in manners just expressed. In short, the thoughts we endorse are voluntarily, intentionally, upheld by us. And our intentions matter ethically in what we are, do, and become.

If not evil then what term should we use? Deviant? — Captain Homicide

Though I can understand the usage of "evil" in certain contexts, I’m not big on the term. How about “harmful”—and thereby wrong and unethical.

Ah. That explains that then. Thanks.

I agree with much of your post in regard to the issue of evolution. But I would like to verify what you interpret by the term "Deism".

Are you using a different sense of the term than that of the proverbial God as watchmaker—such that the whole of the universe is equivalent to a watch which, once built, is then left to operate on its own devices?

I ask because this just specified sense of Deism so far appears to me to alight to this metaphysical position:

Only in the post-Reformation world where nature is essentially a distinct, subsistent entity and God is no longer being itself does it make sense to talk about the creation of man as a sort of Humean miracle where God acts in creation in a sui generis manner that is distinct from God's acts in nature. In such a view, God is less than fully transcedent and becomes an entity that sits outside the world. In this view, God is to some degree is defined by what God is not, and indeed is defined in terms of finitude (Hegel's bad infinite), and this also causes follow on problems for the interaction of freedom and Providence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Whereas, were Deism to be understood as strictly addressing the belief that "God/Divinity can be know through reason alone and that revelations should be shunned as evidence", this so far seems to me to be utterly nondescript, for it can then encompass most anything theistic: e.g., everything from monotheism to pantheism, if not even animism, can thereby then be validly claimed to be forms of Deism. But this so far doesn't seem right to me. Or am I not understanding the issue properly?

The theological equivalent to "sognaresexual" and "herstory". — Lionino

You've never read Venus on the Half-Shell, then?

As was told, the protagonist who wants an answer to "why are we birthed only to suffer and die?" at long last arrives on that planet where God lives. The inhabitants of that planet, God's favorite creatures, these being beer-drinking giant cockroaches of extreme intelligence, inform the protagonist that God decided to forget himself a long time ago and that now no one knows where he's at. So the protagonist's question gets answered by the leader of the cockroach bunch instead with, "Well, why not?".

The best take on Deism I've so far come to know.

I'm really curious what the thinkers here think of evolution. — flannel jesus

I believe I’m most certainly an outlier, but I’ll answer the question just the same.

In short, evolution happened naturally, such that Nature itself is thoroughly teleological in its nature (I’ll, however imperfectly, lean on Aristotelian metaphysics for this affirmation). Given any system of what is now commonly enough termed “panpsychism”, this naturally occurring, teleological evolution then occurred since the commencement of the current cosmos long before life came into being (here granting a Big Bounce model of the universe). It’s very cumbersome to properly explain via justifications, but there you have it.

I didn’t select the first option due to the implicit differences in what Nature is deemed to entail: namely, modern day naturalism will tend to associate teleology with the supernatural, which is distinctly different than the position I endorse regarding Nature’s immanent characteristics.

That said, neither does this perspective fit into any of the other options, including the third option. Rather than being guided by a superlative psyche, evolution is pivotally guided by natural constraints in conjunction with the will of all beings (which thereby actively undergo the process of evolution). For one example, in sexual selection, lifeforms' choices regarding mates (this in tune with Darwin’s own works) will “guide” the outcomes of evolution in conjunction with natural constraints on what can and cannot be—such that each such individual lifeform is then “a being (of varying degrees of intelligence) that guides the trajectory of evolution” (akin to being a drop of water in an ocean, from which the ocean itself is constituted). This metaphorical ocean consisting of the total sum of all coexistent lifeforms being—either genotypically or, for me far more importantly, phenotypically—that via which variations emerge; with these variations again being culled, or selected for, by what in ultimate appraisals are universal constraints.

I’m not here intending to argue for all this. Just wanted to address the curiosity regarding different vantages on the issue of evolution.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life. — Jack Cummins

Political correctness as concept has always been problematic for me. This because it can be all too easily used in Orwellian manners by antisocial people to further uphold their antisocial behaviors and creeds. Here’s one definition of “political correctness”:

1. (uncountable) Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness

While it is certainty true that it is impossible to enforce via coercion a commonly upheld ideal of closer proximity to a peaceful, loving, and understanding society, the converse of this very ideal would be closer proximity to a society of unending conflicts, hatreds, and misapprehensions. And without some societally imposed constraints, the latter could well overtake a society in a short enough timespan.

In one parallel, without societal constraints on the killing of other humans, murderers would greatly increase in number at the detriment of the society’s wellbeing in general.

No, insulting, laughing down upon with malice in one’s heart, or else dehumanizing a minority does not equate to a murdering of the minority in question. But, then, what is the difference between the boogieman of political correctness and a social decency enforced via non-legal means by a majority of the societies citizens?

Here’s one concrete example: There is no law (in the USA, at least) against a white person terming an African American a n*gger. But it’s decent not to do so. And this decency, at present at least, tends to be emphasizes as a good to be held onto by the majority (as well as via most of current media, political norms, etc.)—such that not following this decency is greatly frowned upon and (as can be the case with saying this term during employment) can at times lead to disciplinary actions by institutions (such as, depending on the business, being fired from one’s job).

Is this cultural indictment of calling African Americans n*ggers (despite many calling themselves this term, such as in many a song, etc.) a “horror show” or else a “tyranny upon one’s liberties”? And, if so, are we to understand liberties as including the right to dehumanize and disenfranchise humans form society simply on account of, for one example, their minority status—such as by actively labeling other groups of people subhuman animals that ought to be lynched?

Regardless of answers, the pronouncement of not calling African Americans n*ggers remains a prime example of that which is termed “political correctness”—be this same dictum of itself deemed a “horror show” or not.

Ciao, then.

Not what I quite explicitly stated. — javra

Yeah, it was. — Banno

Wait for it ... Nope, it wasn't.

As a refresher:

such that what we empirically experience as occurring at time X actually occurred prior to time X. — javra

Does not translate into:

Any event we see occurred in the past, therefore we never see any event. — Banno

And you haven't answered the question I asked regarding the science. Somewhat disingenuous.

Any event we see occurred in the past, therefore we never see any event.

How's that again? — Banno

Not what I quite explicitly stated. Do you disagree with the linked to science?

As I so far understand the positions held, to me the issue of direct v. indirect realism is misplaced—not because it’s not important or else handwaving, etc.—but because they both occur at the same time yet this from different vantages. To have some terminology to express these two different vantages cogently:

a) Intra-agential reality; aka intrareality: that set of actualities that strictly apply to the one agent concerned; akin to an agent’s umwelt.
b) Equi-agential reality; aka equireality: that set of actualities that strictly apply in equal manner to all coexisting agents in the cosmos; what is commonly understood to be reality at large.

I'll use the issue of the present time to try to change focus on what—if I understand things well enough—is the exact same issue:

From the vantage of (b), everything empirical that we experience occurring in the present is known by science to in fact occur some fractions of a second prior to our conscious apprehension of it (with some estimates having it consciously occur nearly .3 seconds after the initial stimulus onset (1)) —such that what we empirically experience as occurring at time X actually occurred prior to time X. This, then, to me is accordant to indirect realism.

From the vantage of (a), we all experientially know that everything empirical which we experience occurring in the unitary perception of the present’s duration (2) strictly occurs in a present moment of which we are consciously aware, one that is differentiated from occurrences which occur before (even if this “before” is itself within our unitary perception of duration) and those yet to occur—such that, here, there is no time lapse whatsoever between what we empirically experience and our awareness of it (as one example of this to further this point: when we engage in a heated conversation with another agent face to face, the two agents’ awareness of the present moment—in which they each act and react in response to the other and their words—is fully identical relative to the conscious awareness of both agents … with no time lapse that we are in any way aware of). This, then, to me is accordant to direct realism.

From here, things can of course get far more complex when analyzed. For one example, we can only come to know about (b) strictly via (a).

Nevertheless, to stick to the thread’s subject, I find that both these realities (the indirect one and the direct one) necessarily co-occur. The same co-occurrence of the two can just as well then be specified for our seeing that purple shirt there yonder (I've used "purple" because colors from purple to magenta don't occur as a wavelength, being only real in sense (a) and not sense (b)).

----------

1)

Based on empirical and simulation data we propose that an initial phase of perception (stimulus recognition) occurs 80–100 ms from stimulus onset under optimal conditions. It is followed by a conscious episode (broadcast) 200–280 ms after stimulus onset, — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081809/

2)

Direct, unitary perception of duration occurs up to a maximum period of approximately 1.5 to 2 seconds from the beginning to the end of a continuous sensory stimulus. — https://www.britannica.com/science/time-perception/Perceived-duration

--------

Edit: I also think of things in terms of inter-agential realities (intersubjectivities), such as the human-relative intersubjectivity of all non-blind and non-colorblind people commonly seeing the same purple ... but for the sake of keeping things simple I've only specified those two reality types of (a) and (b).

These contradictions are producing further contradictions, — Leontiskos

I hope I didn't give the impression that perplexity-views such as your own are beyond the pale. I think they make a certain amount of sense given the complexity of the moral landscape. — Leontiskos

To keep things short, I don't find that my account of ethics would make any sense whatsoever were it to in fact incorporate "contradictions", which I do not find my account to incorporate: At no juncture in my account can there ever be something that is both right and wrong at the same time and in the same respect. I instead find that the nuances (in respect to ends pursued) in my account make these “different respects” sufficiently evident. But I have little doubt that disagreements would yet continue, and, at the end of the day, maybe this is neither here nor there.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. :up: — Leontiskos

Ditto!

Nevertheless, the data so far acquired from modern physics will remain and need to be accounted for in whatever scientific developments regarding category (b) that might eventually result. Making the going "back to a highly mechanistic picture of the world in scientific education/philosophy" highly inappropriate. — javra

On the contrary we already do this modern return to mechanism except it's not called mechanism.

It's called physical analogue modeling. [...] — substantivalism

Are you equating these models to what science in essence is? If you are, you then seem to disagree with my appraisals of what empirical science consists of. No biggie, but I am curious.

------

When I stated that the data remains, I was addressing the verifiable results which are for example obtained from the delayed-choice quantum erasure experiment—which pose serious problems either for classical notions of causation, for classical notions of physical identity, or else for both. And I so far understand both these classical notions to be requisite for any mechanistic account, even more so for any "highly mechanistic" account of the world in scientific philosophy.

The replicable data obtained from this experiment, then, will yet need to be accurately accounted for regardless of the implemented models, mathematical or otherwise; regardless of the philosophical explanations which inevitably make use of metaphysical assumptions regarding the nature of space, time, and causality; and so forth. As to the mathematics involved, it is directly related to the data—such that were the mathematical system implemented to be contradicted by empirical test, it would hold no scientific value. Here, for example, thinking of the classic tests which were accordant to Einstein's theory of general relativity; were these test to have not so been, the mathematical system/theory would not have held water. (Related to this, because string-theory is currently not falsifiable via tests, this mathematical system is argued by some to be non-scientific—even if other speculate that M-theory can be further developed into a unified theory of physics.) At any rate, while explanations and models for the acquired data can change, the data nevertheless remains.

-------

But going back to the issue of a highly mechanistic picture of the world:

To be clearer, by “mechanistic” I so far understand a model, system, process, thing, etc. that incorporates a classical billiard-ball-like understanding of causation and, thereby, entails the classical Newtonian understandings of space and time required for such causation’s mechanical occurrence. Do you have something else in mind in your use of the term?

If not, and if you know of any “highly mechanistic” model (regardless of its technical name; regardless of it being strictly mathematical or else in any way analogously representational) that can accurately account for results such as from the delayed-choice quantum erasure experiment, I’d be grateful for a reference to it. (The closest I can currently think of is the MWI of QM, but this fully deterministic understanding is not accordant to “mechanistic” as I’ve just described it.)

Do you think that modern physics, or even philosophy in general, has gone off the rails with regards to non-visualized poetry/metaphor and abstract obsessions? Or is there some way to lean into non-visualization through metaphor or mathematical modeling but without an occultist taste to it? Should we go back to a highly mechanistic picture of the world in scientific education/philosophy regardless of what those analogue models may specifically be? — substantivalism

It seems to me it's been written from a perspective of a kind of disillusionment, by someone who formerly believed that the role of science was to develop a true picture of the world, but has now come to see that this seems increasingly remote. — Wayfarer

You are not wrong in that assessment. In my life I have few interests and fewer things to be proud of in their stability as well as their personal meaningfulness. However, the deflationist and deconstructivist views of others upon all philosophy, but especially scientific thought, has resulted in a rather bitter view to it all. — substantivalism

In my own, maybe all too imperfect, intentions to be of help, I’ll express my own views regarding the many at times contradictory, and often non-intuitive, perspectives that have emerged from that one empirical science of modern physics.

Speaking for myself, I try not to mistake, or else equivocate, between a) the empirical sciences as enterprise and methodology and b) the conclusions, be they popularly upheld or not, which this same enterprise has resulted in and continues to produce.

I deem (a) to be grounded in the intent of an ever-improving, psychologically objective appraisal regarding that which is commonly actual to all and thereby empirically verifiable. For the science of physics, this then is the very nature of the physical world at large. Of emphasis here is the intent just mentioned and the use of the scientific method as an optimal means of bringing this same intent to fruition. Everything from falsifiable hypotheses, confounding-variable-devoid tests of such hypotheses (or as near to such tests as we can produce), replicability of these test’s results by anyone who so wants (and obviously has the means) to so test, and the very important peer-review method (which in its own way serves as a checks and balances of biases) by which the validity of all such aspects that the scientific method utilizes is optimally verified, hence optimally safeguarding against these same aspects being endowed with mistakes of some kind.

(A) might not be perfect, but we so far do not know of a better methodology for ascertaining that which is in fact actual relative to all agents irrespective of what agents might individually believe (this actuality to me being physical reality), this in optimally impartial manners.

In turn, I deem (b) to always be fallible in its nature, never in any respect presenting a definitively proven absolute truth. Yet, due to (a), (b) shall then tend toward what is in fact less partial, or biased, in comparison to beliefs held by individual agents. I’m more interested in neurology and related sciences so, using this as example, about half a century ago it was more or less generally upheld that an adult brain’s physiology was generally static, or hard-wired, for the individual’s life (that synaptic connections did not change in any way other than by either becoming stronger or weaker - for one example, the neuroscience professor in a lab I worked in as a tech after graduating college held onto this view quite stringently). Today, via the same implementation of the scientific method that led to this generally accepted belief, we’ve now generally come to accept that neural plasticity in the adult human brain remains an occurrent phenomena (for example, that new synaptic connections can at times be made or else can at times decay to such extent that they no longer are). The commonly accepted appraisal of what the data informs us of has changed—this due to newly acquired data that disproves the adequacy of former beliefs—but the science as methodology via which this data is acquired has nevertheless remained wholly unchanged.

As to the mathematical modeling (of the acquired empirical data) you mention, I generally place it within category (b). When it comes to the application of maths in category (a)—such is the case with statistics—issues become philosophical in nature, rather than scientific.

As just outlined, I then don’t view modern day sciences as being in any way undermined by views such as those you’ve mentioned. Science as category (a) remains wholly undefeated in relation to its purposes.

As to category (b) in respects to modern physics, I personally find it useful to remember that, because we don’t have a unified theory or everything physical, either the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, or else both are then in some ways wrong—irrespective of their strong predictive value. This in parallel to how Newtonian physics is now known to be inaccurate—despite its predictive value yet being accurate enough for most purposes. When a theory of everything physical will be obtained, things will then click into place far better. Till then (if not even beyond), I find it best to not hold onto any so far well established physicist theory (ToR and QM included) as portraying an absolute truth—but as fallibilistic accounts which are known a priori to be in need of significant, maybe even foundational, tweaking. Nevertheless, the data so far acquired from modern physics will remain and need to be accounted for in whatever scientific developments regarding category (b) that might eventually result. Making the going "back to a highly mechanistic picture of the world in scientific education/philosophy" highly inappropriate.

I am hoping this might be of some help—even if it will not resolve all concerns (but, then again, such would be quite the utopia indeed :grin: ).

Or perhaps the more pertinent question is, "What happens when we encounter unforeseen dilemmas?" — Leontiskos

I see that I was addressing many presumptions which are not shared. This for instance. By "obstacle" I naturally assumed that that which stands in the way and thereby impedes is/was unforeseen. Otherwise I'd simply view it as part of the terrain to be traveled. If I see a house between me and the house's backyard to which I want to get to, I don't then discern the house to be an obstacle in my path. But if I expect the backyard gate to be unlocked when in fact it is, this I might then consider something that impedes my intended progress.

What are the two ends?

Strive to arrive at destination Z from location A in as short a time as possible.
Strive to arrive at destination Z from location A in as short a time as possible, in ideal circumstances. — Leontiskos

Every voyage toward a destination is, consciously or unconsciously, idealized to go as expected or planed, i.e. for the circumstances to be as one best foresees, and thereby idealizes, them. If I take a flight from A to Z, unexpected weather conditions might have it that I get detoured and delayed. Or that I never arrive. Nevertheless, I will take the flight expecting to arrive on time as per the ideal circumstances of so arriving as scheduled.

So I so far disagree with this division into two ends where considering the analogy I've provided.

Again, I see two ends, and in this case I think both are simultaneously aimed at:

1) Do not commit violence (because violence requires treating the object as a means)
2) Survive as a community


These are both involved in the goal to, "Arrive at a Kingdom of Ends."

But in this case it seems that (2) is given precedence over (1), and I'm not sure if it is possible to arrive at a "Kingdom of Ends" so long as (2) is given precedence over (1). When would you ever "get there"?
Obviously the alternative would be strict pacifism: giving (1) precedence over (2). — Leontiskos

"Do not commit violence" holds no meaning or significance in the complete absence of agents. In order for violence to not be committed, there must be agents present which do not commit violence. So I again find the presented dichotomy of ends to be inappropriate.

Aside from which, as stated (1) gives the impression of an absolute commandment. ... Whose goodness or rightness as such would be itself justified in which manner?

Moreover, the "strict pacifism" mentioned would leave all peace aspiring people to die at the hands of violent people, thereby resulting in nothing but violence-loving people to populate the world in its entirety. How might this bring about or else be in the service of a "Kingdom of Ends"?

Hearkening back to the OP, my difficulty is the way that you are apt to class exceptions as non-human acts. — Leontiskos

Aside from certain parts of the second counterexample I've provided, where have i done so?

If you wish to continue, it seems to me that we would need to discuss this issue of moral perplexity. It seems that on theories such as your own, which admit of perplexity, one must either transgress duties or else redefine those duties as being in some way non-obligatory. — Leontiskos

I am now getting the sense that you might uphold a moral code of duties via systems of deontology that traditionally have made little sense to me. Namely, those which uphold a strict duty or obligation to absolute oughts and ought nots irrespective of consequence. If so, I would rather not continue this conversation, being fairly confident that it will result in disagreements without resolution.

:up:

What puts the final nail in the coffin of determinism is the reality of the decision not to choose. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think hard determinism can have a mind of its own, meaning that it could find justification even for this. But yes, I'm in general agreement with you.

I’ll for now address the following last portion of your first reply since I see this as pivotal to most all of the other replies I might myself give. I know there is a lot left for me to address, but, before I do, please let me know if the following is something that you find fault with. If this leads to an insurmountable difference of perspectives, then I doubt you’d find any of my other further replies cogent.

Regarding your X, Y, Z analysis, I would want to say that if X is necessary to achieve Y and Y is necessary to achieve Z, then X is necessary to achieve Z. In fact this would seem to prove that it is false to claim that, "[X] does not allow for the ultimate achievement of Z." Or am I underestimating the work that your term "optimally fitting" is doing? (Note that if, as you seem to say, Z precludes X, then it cannot simultaneously be true that X is necessary to achieve Z) — Leontiskos

Via one analogy (which as analogy can only go so far), say that one strives to arrive at destination Z from location A in as short a time as possible so as to win a prize. Were it at all possible to do so, one would then rationally follow a straight path from point A to point Z, this being the shortest path to travel. But there is an intractable obstacle in the way at point K.

The ideal means of arriving at Z remains that of traveling a straight path. A straight path toward Z then remains the ideal right, or ideally correct, or the ideally good means of arriving at Z in optimally short time—this in ideal circumstances. Anything that deviates from this ideal right, or correct, or good means of arriving at Z will, then, by default not be the ideally right/correct/good means of arriving at Z: In and of itself, traveling perpendicular to the ideal path will never allow one to arrive at Z—for if one perpetually so travels perpendicularly one can only ever-further oneself from the sought destination. Because of this, traveling leftward/rightward will, in and of itself, be a wrong/incorrect/bad means of arriving at Z in ideal conditions.

Still, now the conditions are not ideal due to the obstacle. If one dutifully maintains one’s ideal path, one will thereby fail in one’s attempts to win the prize. So now one must travel perpendicularly for a while, thereby engaging in what will in ideal terms be a wrong/incorrect/bad means of arriving at Z in optimal time. One, instead, must now do what is not ideally right, or correct, or good: one must circumvent the obstacle by being antithetical to that which is ideally right/correct/good and now distance oneself from Z by traveling leftward or rightward along the obstacle’s boarder till the obstacle ends.

Traveling straight toward Z is nevertheless necessary for arriving at Z. It’s just that due to the obstacle in the way, one must now do otherwise that travel straight toward Z till the obstacle is circumvented, thereby furthering oneself from Z, subsequent to which one then again proceeds to travel straight toward Z. Given the obstacle, only by so doing will one arrive at one destination of Z and win the desired prize.

Is it wrong/incorrect/bad to not travel straight toward Z at all times? In an idealized setting, it is: for so doing will at the very least always increase the amount of time it takes to arrive at Z, thereby making the time span less than optimal, and at the very worst so doing will make arriving at Z logically impossible.

Yet, given the less-than-ideal reality of the obstacle in the way, is it then wrong/incorrect/bad to deviate as little as possible from traveling straight toward Z at all times so as circumvent the obstacle? No: it is right/correct/good to so deviate as little as is required to circumvent the obstacle. This even though one will be disgruntled (rather than take pleasure) in so doing, for one knows that so doing furthers the time required to reach Z.

That which is right/correct/good in an idealized setting is then that which I previously termed “ultimately right/correct/good”—here, traveling straight toward Z—for it is that which is ultimately required to obtain Z. And from this same vantage of ultimate right/correct/good (which might also be termed “the ideal good”), traveling perpendicular to this trajectory is an ultimate wrong/incorrect/bad way of going about things—this as far as ideals go—again, because it can only further one form one’s desired destination irrespective of quantity or degree to which it is done.

Yet, sometimes this very same distancing from Z—i.e., that which is ultimately bad or wrong—will be the only possible way of further approaching Z when the scenario is less than ideal, and this only unlit this same ultimate bad can be dispensed with and that which is ultimately good or right can once again be implemented toward arriving at Z.

In so being, this “means of optimally approaching Z by minimally furthering oneself from Z so as to circumvent the obstacle” will not be that which is ultimately good (going toward Z in a straight path) but, instead, that which I will for now term “pragmatically good”. Of note, though: for something to in fact be pragmatically good it must still best approximate—or else minimally deviate from—that which is ideally good so as to obtain Z given the less-than-ideal circumstances to be had.

Now equate Z with (here a fully non-deontological notion of) Kant’s Kingdom of Ends. If this is too obtuse, then a yet to be global society wherein people don’t commit violence against each other of their own free accord—a yet to be global society I will here for brevity term “utopia”.

In ideal settings, violence will here always be a wrong (i.e., the wrong/incorrect/bad means of obtaining ends)—for violence will always further one from this Kingdom of Ends / utopia, i.e. from one’s destination of Z. Furthermore, one can never (not even in principle) actualize Z in perfected form via violence’s application. This because one cannot actualize a loving peace of mutual understanding amongst mankind via the use of violence (e.g., placing a gun to a person’s head and telling them you’ll shoot if they don’t become your best friend, which would at minimum be psychological violence, will not result in the other’s genuine friendship toward you).

Nevertheless, when someone unjustly attacks your personhood or those of fellow Kingdom-of-Ends/utopia-aspiring others, not stopping the assailant(s) via force when needed—and hence via use of some measure of violence—will further everyone from an actualization of the Kingdom of Ends / utopia. Wherein stopping the assailants, though antithetical to Z’s occurrence due to the very violence required, will however optimally allow for closest proximity to Z in long-term appraisals for those concerned.

Yet violence is here still not that which is ultimately right; it is still something that in ultimate, or else ideal, terms is a wrong—this as determined by Z itself. But the application of this means—given the obstacles that befall one in less than ideal circumstances—can yet be that which is the only pragmatic good to take. This so long as that which is pragmatically good optimally approximates—else minimally deviates from—the ideal good of never engaging in violence.

To then ask whether violence is moral or immoral will depend on the vantage taken: relative to the very actualization and thereby eventual actuality of Z, it will always be immoral. Yet relative to what is on occasion pragmatically needed to best approach the actualization of Z, it will in certain circumstances be moral. As was illustrated, this strictly contingent on—not its application per se—but the intention(s) with which it becomes applied. (edit: Hence, were the intention to be that of optimal approach toward the non-violent utopia of Z, then the application of violence as means toward the end of Z (if ever needed) will strictly occur with maximal self-constraint against any and all unneeded violence—this, in short, because the means used shall themselves be in large part teleologically determined (or else driven) by the end which is pursued. Much like wanting to arrive at location Z of itself as telos determines that in ideal setting one ought to travel a straight path toward Z, and that one optimally approximates this ideal whenever obstacles in the way require one to travel perpendicularly to this same ideal straight path.)

--------

I’ve already written a fair sum. So I’ll stop short for now to see if you find fault with what was just mentioned.

For what its worth, it might be cumbersome to explain, but I all the same so far find it conformant to the living of a virtuous life (this as best one can, with the occasional mistake granted).

I was clarifying what is meant by "hunger". And, rather than being sophistical, I was exposing your sophistry. When we say that someone has "the desire to eat", we recognize the generality of the supposed "object" by showing that what is actually desired is a particular type of activity, "to eat". — Metaphysician Undercover

Only in an attempt to further your argument:

Hunger is a physiological sensation or pang. The experiencing of hunger, though, does not even necessitate a person's conscious "desire to eat". Case in point: a person who is on a diet (or else fasting, such as for religious purposes) might well at times experience what is relative to the person extreme hunger ... yet the (conscious) person might nevertheless in no way intend to eat anything, thereby having no such desire.

However, when the conscious will concerned aligns, else assimilates, itself with their experienced hunger, then, and only then, will the person consciously desire to appease this physiological sensation which goads: the very appeasing of this physiological sensation then being the immediate object (or maybe better, objective) of concern. And this appeasing of the sensation as a now primary telos will then occur via a very generalized secondary telos of eating something. The specifics of what is to be eaten yet being a matter of choice between available alternatives. Only once this choice between available alternatives is made will there then be a concrete and specific object (or objective) to be realized ... this so as to satisfy the primary (consciously held) telos to all this, which is that of alleviating the underlying pangs of hunger.

As an aside, Peter Simpson has a paper related to a similar issue, "Justice, Scheffler and Cicero." — Leontiskos

I skimmed through the paper. The principal example given - that of killing one person to save five - has always been irksome to me due to its ambiguity/non-specificity: ought one kill a Mother Teresa to save five Hitlers or, else, ought one not kill one Hitler and allow five Mother Teresas to die instead? Or, as per the trolley problem, if all six are of exact same moral worth, why kill one of them to save the five instead of choosing to jump off the bridge oneself in a blaze of glory (... all lives considered being equal in moral worth and all)? But getting back to your reply ...

Also, your book looks interesting! — Leontiskos

I could deprecate it galore, but thanks for so saying.

I think the basic idea here is fairly straightforward. It is the question, "Does duress excuse?" Or, "Is one still culpable when they act under duress?" — Leontiskos

I'm thinking I didn't present the hypothetical sufficiently well. The hypothetical is strictly aiming to illustrate the possibility of a person being attributively responsible for deed X without however then being morally responsible for deed X. Here, let attributive responsibility for X be understood as "being the primary cause for X" and let moral responsibility for X be understood as "being answerable for the goodness or badness of X".

I might be wrong, but I'm thinking this definition of moral responsibility will hold in all cases.

Alternative (b) was provided so as to force the person into freely choosing of their own will between (a. i) and (a. ii) - such that the choice between (a. i) and (a. ii) is in no way constrained by threats or ultimatums (unlike the choice between (a) and (b) - which, due to being made under extreme duress, the person can be argued to not be attributively responsible for). In this second, non-coerced choice between the given wrongs, the person of their own liberty then chooses what they deem to be the lesser of two wrongs (or evils as you say), and thereby commits a relatively minor transgression of mores.

But the issue to this hypothetical, within its own context of argument, is as follows: must the person in this case then be answerable for the goodness/badness of the deed they brought about?

In other words, are they in any way morally responsible for their choice (a choice which they now are attributively responsible for)? Specifically, this for having insulted a stranger rather than having done a far worse bad/evil/wrong against this same stranger.

To either celibate or deride the individual for his choice so far to me makes little to no sense. And, if so, the person is not morally responsible for their (in this example) freely willed choice - a choice which was thereby a human act (which the OP affirms to always be a moral act).

It's not about the choice or deed being excusable due to the duress - there was no duress in the two alternatives of the second choice that was taken (there was only a necessary choice between a fixed set of alternatives, with complete liberty to choose either). It's about the individual not being answerable for the goodness or badness (depending on perspective) of the choice of insulting a stranger rather than beating them unconscious. (In contrast, were the person to choose not to insult but to instead beat the stranger unconscious, then they would be morally responsible for their choice - for, in this case, they would now be answerable for the goodness/badness of their choice.)

So the hypothetical presents a human act that, as per the OP, is a moral act, which the given agent is nevertheless not morally responsible for (this by the very definition of moral responsibility provided). A choice for which the agent is attributively responsible that is nevertheless amoral in its characteristics - here strictly meaning that it is beyond the realms of moral responsibility wherein the agent can be either praised for taking a good choice or blamed for taking a bad one.

Lots of explaining done. If you still feel that the example is not of significant interest, I'm more than willing to let this one possible counterexample go in the context of this thread.

I was not expecting to receive this level of engagement in the thread! — Leontiskos

I'm myself finding it a good means of honing my reasoning skills (or lack thereof :smile: )

For Aquinas (as for Kant) it is not permissible to lie even in this case. Here is what he says in an article entitled, "Whether every lie is a sin?":

[...]

Reply to Objection 4. A lie is sinful not only because it injures one's neighbor, but also on account of its inordinateness, as stated above in this Article. Now it is not allowed to make use of anything inordinate in order to ward off injury or defects from another: as neither is it lawful to steal in order to give an alms, except perhaps in a case of necessity when all things are common. Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x). — Aquinas, ST II-II.110.3.ad4 — Leontiskos

Myself, I so far find the idealizations of what should be which are presented in this reply contrary to "deliberate reason ... directed to the due end" which Aquinas also makes mention of. Were this due end, for example, to be that of completely obeying or else holding duty to a set of rules set up by some supreme rule-maker, this might then make sense to me. But consider this hypothetical: either one tells oneself a white lie (say, that today the appearance of one's clothes is decent when, in reality, one does not feel this to be so) or, else, all of humanity perishes (one can affix whatever daemon scenario on pleases to this). If the end pursued is absolute obedience/duty to the rule-maker's rule that one does not ever lie, then it might be correct, or right, to destroy all of humanity by not lying. Yet - not only does this intuitively seem very wrong - but, in changing the end one directs one's actions toward to that of, say, maximal eudemonia, it would then necessarily be rationally incorrect, or worng, to do so as well.

As I believe this illustrated, the issue pivots on what one's ultimate goal is - via which one's current best choices are teleologically determined, and via which one can rationally appraise the rightness or wrongness of one's actions. To this effect:

Would you object to my characterizing your view as (a robust form of) consequentialism? — Leontiskos

This is not an easy question for me to answer. But I'll try. My own views on morality are thoroughly teleological. And, in so deeming, find that this outlook can well be concluded an emphatically complex form of consequentialism just as readily as it can be concluded a form of deontology (wherein one holds a duty to best approximate or else actualize that ultimate long-term goal which is itself of pure intrinsic value). For example, for Kant, this ultimate goal one ought to dutifully pursue to the best of one's ability is the Kingdom of Ends - wherein at least every human is deemed of intrinsic value and never viewed as instrumentally valuable for the benefit of any one human or cohort of these. Maybe I could also point out that, absent any such goal, deontological duty loses meaning (other than, again, duty to obey some other psyche's already made rules ... yet such latter obedience too holds an at least implicit goal in mind, such as that of being rewarded rather than punished by the rule-maker).

That said, any system of consequentialism that does not look upon such literally ultimate long-term goal but, instead, focuses one merely intermediate goals will, to me, necessarily be less than moral. One here deems eating candy a good due to the intermediate goal of satisfying one's sweet-tooth despite so doing leading to tooth decay and the loss of one's teeth ... sort of mindset. And I don't find that typical utilitarianism holds any such ultimate long-term goal in mind - just a generalized heuristic that might or might not eventually lead to such goal (depending on its interpretation and administration).

Perhaps one of the most fruitful entry points is linguistic. First, to nitpick a bit, is the bolded an accurate depiction of your view? "Good and thereby moral"? — Leontiskos

Yes, language is important, and I was clumsy in how I applied it. To try to better explain, an important synonym for good is "beneficial", which can be interpreted as being of proper fit. One then can further interpret good as that which is of proper fit to one's goal, or telos. There are always different teloi we actively hold at the same time: some proximate, some distal, some intermediate (and, in my own musing, as per what I mentioned above, one's ultimate telos, which I shall here address as "the Good"). That which fits the Good is always good/right in an ultimate sense. That which is antithetical to the Good is then always bad/wrong in an ultimate sense. Then, if one's actively held ultimate goal "X" is antithetical to the Good, one's intentions will always be bad/wrong in an ultimate sense. This even if, to further approach or actualize goal X, one needs to engage in acts that are of themselves a proper fit to the Good. Example: one wants to sadistically destroy humanity at large but finds that in order to do so one needs to rescue an innocent baby from drowning; one than is compelled to save the baby from drowning (something one would not have otherwise done) in order to destroy humanity and then so proceeds to do. The deed of saving the baby is good, for it of itself as deed is fit to the Good, but the intentions with which this deed is done are bad, for as intentions they are of proper fit to goal X. Otherwise expressed, the saving of the baby does not hold intrinsic value to the saver or the baby - as it would for anyone whose ultimate telos is the Good - but, instead, is strictly of instrumental value in allowing for goal X. In brief, the deed of a saved baby is of itself moral but the intention with which it was saved is immoral.

What's philosophically interesting here is that, according to your position, it would seem that a bad end/goal vitiates a good deed, but a bad deed does not vitiate a good end/goal. — Leontiskos

I would most definitely not express things as they are in the boldfaced text. Rather, I'd say that a good end/goal vitiates those bad deeds mandatory for [edit: one's optimal proximity - given all contexts and available alternatives - to] the good end's/goal's actualization [edit: for the given good end might not be at all actualizable via these very same bad deeds, this despite these bad deeds being mandatory for one's optimal proximity to the good end, all things considered ... with an example of this provided below as pertains to Ukraine's engaging in war]. To me it makes for a world of difference. My beating some complete stranger to a pulp strictly out of the pleasure to do so directly estranges my from the Good. However, where I to be aiming to remain optimally aligned to the Good, and were a horrendous attack on an innocent to occur right in front of me, my then beating to a pulp the assailant so as to prevent the innocent's death (were I to be so capable of doing and were this to somehow be the only viable alternative to take) would be vitiated as an intentionally performed bad/evil/wrong. Here, (were I to be so capable) I would be proud of risking my own life to save the innocent despite the violence I willfully engaged in - and would feel very deep shame and guilt, i.e. profound culpability, where I to do nothing while the innocent died right before me with me doing nothing about it (though, in the latter case, I would not have engaged in any violence myself).

I know things can get more complex, but maybe this serves as good enough explanation?

In other words to advise X such that X non-hypothetically ought to be done is incompatible with X being wrong. Hence the commonly accepted idea that the end will "color" the means (e.g. If Y is necessary, and X is necessary in order to achieve Y, then X becomes necessary). What do you think of this? — Leontiskos

You are right, it's not easy to phrase these disparate notions of wrongness in common speech. But to try to clarify my position: X is not a wrong (an incorrect or else unfit) course of action to take as a necessary means of achieving Y which is itself optimally fitting to an eventual achieving of the ultimate good goal Z - this even though, in direct respect to ultimate good Z, X can only be ascertained as ultimately being a wrong (this because it does not allow for the ultimate achievement of Z). More concretely, let Z = Kant's Kingdom of Ends; Ukraine's engaging in war against an unjustly invading Russia is then something that cannot of itself directly achieve a Kingdom of Ends and, so, is a wrong in this ultimate sense (I do have trouble calling Ukraine's war of self-deference an evil, though, even when termed a "lesser evil"); nevertheless, Ukraine's engaging in war is necessary to achieve Ukraine's maintaining of autonomy, which is itself optimally aligned to an eventual Kingdom of Ends. As regards common speech: although we all know that war is ultimately bad, it is good for Ukraine to engage in war against an unjust invader rather then allowing itself to be decimated by not engaging in such war.


I'll reply to the second post later on.

Just wanted to say I'm in agreement with what you've expressed. ...Including your accolades regarding @Count Timothy von Icarus's posts. :up:

Here is a hypothetical wherein the choice made is concluded to be amoral (this strictly in the sense of being neither blameworthy nor praiseworthy) despite a) the available alternatives not being of equal moral import, b) being an act of consciously made volition and, thereby, a human act, c) being a non-hypothetical ought-judgement and, hence, per the OP, a moral act, and, to top things of, d) the choice taken being a known wrong a priori.

It's an excerpt from something I've already written regarding our free will. (If the moderators disagree with my posting this, or else with my providing a link in the quote for possible context, please inform me and I will delete the post and/or link.)

For reasons just given, I find this example to be pertinent to the thread/OP. And I would greatly appreciate any criticism you might have of its conclusion or contents.

Consider, for example, the following hypothetical—wherein shall be held that it is a moral wrong to insult a stranger:

I am the summoned subject of a tyrannical and mad king who, simply for his own amusement, informs me upon my arrival to his citadel that a) either i) I insult a greatly starved, and thereby physically weakened, stranger that also stands before the king in my presence or ii) I beat this same starved stranger until the stranger becomes unconscious or, else, b) the king will insure that everyone I’ve grown close to will be brutally raped and tortured till they die. Granting that I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the king’s imposition, my first-order choice between alternative (a) and alternative (b) might be considered so coercive as to virtually grant me no choice [...] whatsoever, allowing me only one viable option: that of choosing alternative (a). In then granting this, I nevertheless am in no way coerced in my choosing between alternative (a. i) and (a. ii)—for, other than a potential harm to my conscience, neither alternative possess any significant negative repercussions to my personhood—and I happen to be capable of successfully implementing either alternative. I, in being indifferent to which alternative I presume would please this mad king most, then freely choose what I take to be the lesser of the two wrongs—and I thereby proceed to insult the stranger.

Given my alternatives, do I or others then find me culpable for the wrong of having insulted this stranger in front of the king?

While the answer to this question will be contingent on numerous variables (such as, for example, the given stranger’s, and others, degree of empathy for the conundrum into which I was placed through no fault of my own), it is fair to presume that everyone (including the stranger) will be aware that at least the second-order choice I made was freely made by me, was thereby an outcome I intentionally brought about, and, hence, was an outcome I am attributively responsible for. Furthermore, given that I have a generally goodhearted nature, it is also likely fair to presume that everyone (including the given stranger) will nevertheless neither find me blameworthy for my resulting transgression nor praiseworthy for so choosing it over its alternative (considering this outcome the only decent option to be had given the circumstances I was in).

If so, this case illustrates how an [ego or I-ness; i.e., the first person point of view] which is attributively responsible for an outcome commonly deemed a moral wrong—that of insulting a perfect stranger—might neither be blameworthy nor praiseworthy for said outcome, and, hence, how this [ego] might not be morally responsible for an outcome it is nevertheless attributively responsible for. — www.anenquiry.info / Chapter 11: Validating Our Free Will / Section 11.3.2.

Fingers crossed. If this example holds, as I believe it does, it then illustrates how one could have a human act of conscious choice making which, as per the OP, can be defined as a moral act (for it involved non-hypothetical ought-judgements) that is nevertheless amoral in so far as being neither blameworthy nor praiseworthy. And, furthermore, this amoral quality of the act is upheld despite the committed wrong of insulting a perfect stranger.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your views are much appreciated.

So according to your earlier statement which I quoted* (and assuming we have no other choice), the act would be amoral. Here it seems like you want to say that it is simultaneously amoral and wrong. Or perhaps more accurately, the act would be amoral and yet in so acting we would be "committing a wrong." There is thus an interesting way in which immorality and wrongness are separating. — Leontiskos

Ah, well said. Yes, I find there is distinction to be made between immorality and wrongness. I will be later posting an example that I find far more pertinent to the topic but, in general: there are actions which even the most mildly moral folk know to be wrongs. Telling lies and engaging in violence as just two examples. Especially from the viewpoint of what can be termed "the Good", these will always be wrongs in an ultimate sense. Notwithstanding, given the myriad complexities of life, there will be times when engaging in these very wrongs in the short-term will be necessary for optimizing that which is right, or good, in the long term. As one example, were a WWII Nazi to knock at the door to inquire as to whether there is a Jew in your house (granting that the latter would be greatly harmed unjustly by the former via the telling of truths, and that there are Jews in the house), here it will be right/good to lie to the Nazi - thereby resulting in the moral praiseworthiness of having committed what in ultimate analysis is a wrong in the short-term (telling a lie) so as to avert a far greater wrong in the long-term (unjust injury or even death befalling innocent people). The same can be said with physical violence undertaken in self-defense against an unjustly aggressive assailant. Or even in the act of partaking in a just war as a soldier.

Due to life's complexities, in these and like examples we in my view then act morally by engaging in lesser wrongs for the sake of preventing greater wrongs (given caveats such as that no other viable alternative in preventing the greater wrong is available to us).

Because of this, I do deem that on occasion being moral or else immoral is separate from the committing of wrongs. One can likewise appraise someone who does something good and thereby moral due to intentions that are ultimately evil - in so far as having been committed so as to result in the realization of an evil long-term goal. Here, given the overall situation, doing a right/good act can well be nevertheless appraised as immoral (as one possible example, such as when a liar reinforces their nefarious lies via the telling of truths in what is often enough termed "spin").

For Aquinas the moral decision of which foot to begin walking with is, I think, not a human act. This is because there are no rational criteria upon which to deliberate. Because the reason has nothing to act on, therefore it cannot be an act that flows from reason. The act could only become rational (and moral) if perchance the agent fastened upon some aspect that could support rational deliberation. — Leontiskos

In having thought about this, it yet seems to me that, in order for a human to consciously discern that there are no moral differences in the two alternatives available, the human must necessarily to some extent deliberate between the two alternatives - thereby consciously judge and weigh their differences and differing consequences via their reasoning faculties. So doing will itself be a consciously rational act. So, I presently believe that the very act of consciously discerning that the two alternatives have equal moral import can only be a human act - for it requires conscious rationality. Once this active deliberation between the alternatives arrives at the conclusion that the available alternatives are of equal moral import, then ... I'm thinking one could still make a reason-based conscious choice as to which alternative to act on (for example, choosing to start with the right foot with the aim of maintaining consistency were this scenario to ever befall again - thereby keeping the harm to a minimum (I know this is iffy, but its the best I've got at the moment)) or, else, one might at this juncture simply allow one's strongest unconscious impulse to precipitate a first step with whichever leg it might be - or else abide by the flipping of a coin. If the first, it would then still be a reason based conscious act. If the latter, then not.

All the same, in terms of blameworthiness/praiseworthiness, the individual's act would be beyond either. Given no other available alternative to choose from, in this sense alone the person's act of walking would then be amoral - despite resulting in an equal wrong regardless of alternative acted on. Yet the discernment of the act so being (both on the part of the individual or any onlooker) would then be fully rational - for the individual here was not negligent; he/she took to time to deliberate the situation so as to arrive at the rational discernment of being forced to commit an equal wrong regardless of what is chosen.

I'm hoping my reasoning here is explained well enough. In short, I yet see it as a human act (i.e. a rationally conscious act of volition) on grounds that the person reasoned the equivalency of the two alternatives - thereby deciding that there is no best and worst alternative to choose between. The person then in one way or another acts in accordance to this deliberation-resultant reasoned conclusion.

But do let me know if you find fault with this.

Here is a related quote from Aquinas:

And every individual action must needs have some circumstance that makes it good or bad, at least in respect of the intention of the end. For since it belongs to the reason to direct; if an action that proceeds from deliberate reason be not directed to the due end, it is, by that fact alone, repugnant to reason, and has the character of evil. But if it be directed to a due end, it is in accord with reason; wherefore it has the character of good. — Leontiskos

Nice quote! To me, again, the individual, in judging the merits of the two alternatives via deliberation, arrives at the conclusion that there isn't a more moral alternative to take via the use of "deliberate reason ... directed to the due end [of minimizing harm / maximizing eudemonia]" - and their action will then be accordant to this very deliberate reason directed to the due end. It just so happens that, on these very same grounds, the conclusion is that there is no alternative which is better/worse than the other. So, due to their faculty of conscious reasoning, they then know that they have no choice but to necessarily commit an identical wrong irrespective of which available alternative they choose. And, because in this hypothetical they must choose among one of the two alternatives, their either consciously made or else unconsciously resultant choice is then neither in any way blameworthy nor praiseworthy.

Ha - very interesting! Aquinas follows Augustine, and for Augustine evil is a privation of what ought to be, which dovetails nicely with some of this. Further, as you may have noticed from the above, for Aquinas irrationality and immorality are closely related. — Leontiskos

Precisely! :up: :smile: Nice to see your evaluation of it.

I'll post the initially mentioned hypothetical I have in mind separately, this just in case the moderators might want me to delete it.

Concepts are crucial to cognition and to understanding of that perceived, but are in themselves extra-empirical. — javra

And still contain no information which is beyond observable reality. — Vera Mont

Humans throughout history have conceived of many different possible worlds. Not all these possible worlds which exist among humans as concepts are within the boundaries of observable reality. For one example of this, the monads of Leibniz’s monadology are non-observable. Yet the concept of monadology still holds (non-observable) information.

will necessarily exclude many if not most elements which the concept itself encompasses.

This, I understand not at all. — Vera Mont

Perceptually focus on any exemplar of animal. Once this exemplar is visualized (or heard, smelled, touched, etc.) either via the imagination or otherwise, it will exclude all other possible exemplars of animal which the concept of “animal” by its very definition encompasses. For example, if the visualized exemplar of “animal” is a bird, this will exclude all dolphins, all insects, all reptiles, etc. Because of this, the concept of animal is itself non-observable, for it includes all individual exemplars of the concept that can be individually observed all at once. And such a thing cannot be seen, nor heard, nor smelled, etc.

----

EDIT: p.s., The same non-observability will apply to all concepts, even those that are far more specific. For example, the concept of a “red apple” will by its very delineation include all possible hews of red, all apple shapes and sizes, and all apple species (which can be in any way any shade of red) all at once—thereby making the concept of “red apple” non-observable when one gets into the nitty-gritty. And any given visualization of a red apple we might find ourselves holding will, then, necessarily exclude all the other possible exemplars of a red apple which the concept necessarily encompasses.

To emphasize: when I previously mentioned that we think and understand perceptions via concepts, but that concepts are in themselves extra-empirical (else non-observable), it is this analysis of concepts that I held in mind. Controversial though I know this can be.

my asking what information is there in the extra-empirical? — Vera Mont

Concepts are crucial to cognition and to understanding of that perceived, but are in themselves extra-empirical. One for example does not perceive the concepts of "animal" or of "world" or of "number" but simply understands them - this when perceiving signs, for example - and any perception we might have of an animal or a world or a number (be it of the imagination or not) will necessarily exclude many if not most elements which the concept itself encompasses.

Nice exposition of Zeno!

Abstract space (as opposed to physical space) cannot be discrete because any minimum unit you propose can be halved. — keystone

[...]

The discreteness that ↪Metaphysician Undercover
↪Michael
are looking for is not in space but in measurement/observation. — keystone

Yes, I’m in agreement with you as to the non-discreteness of space.

Good thoughts! Suppose an evil genius (or maybe an evil non-genius :sweat:) rigs up a scenario where he will murder one of two people given a decision you make. As you are standing still, he tells you, "If you begin walking with your left foot I will kill person A, and if you begin walking with your right foot I will kill person B." You know nothing about either person beyond these simple facts. According to your argument, "because there is no discernible morally best alternative - for both alternatives are to be deemed equally good or bad - irrespective of the choice made the volitional act can nevertheless be deemed amoral."

What are your thoughts about this? I don't think this alternative scenario necessarily undermines your reasoning, but I am curious what you would say. — Leontiskos

Thanks!

Tricky counterexample. My current best thoughts:

Unless the individual will then walk with the explicit intention (and pleasure) of killing some stranger, I wouldn’t term it “murder”. All the same, in this scenario, unlike the first, irrespective of which choice we make we know that we will be committing a wrong beforehand. This will then be a crucial difference.

Because we are committing a wrong, we then will most likely not walk without care but, instead, search for additional alternatives prior to walking: maybe choosing to skip on two legs to where we need to go, or maybe choosing to not move but debate with the evil genius/daemon in hopes of tricking it into stopping its imposition.

If, however, no other conceivable choice were to be available, then we’d literally have no choice but to knowingly commit the wrong of killing some unfortunate stranger via our actions. In which case, because a) we hold no choice in the matter of so doing despite the two alternatives available to us and b) the two alternatives are morally identical in impact to the best of our knowledge—were we to not then so step with the explicit intent and pleasure of killing a stranger—I’d then conclude that our walking either via a first left step or a first right step would be amoral. We would be attributively responsible for (i.e., we’d be a/the primary cause for) the killing of a stranger but we’d not be morally responsible for it (EDIT: here meaning in any way either blameworthy of praiseworthy for the action taken and its consequence).

To me this so far makes ethical sense.

-------

Apropos, as to the evil genius being not so genius: It is interesting to me that in Romanian there are two adjectives for the English word “bad” (with no adjective for “evil”); one is rău, which can just as well mean either “sick” or “mean spirited”; the second is prost, which can just as well mean “stupid” or “idiotic”. (The only relatively close proximity to the term “evil” is the noun form of rău, but, again, it doesn't occur as an adjective). Which when literally translated into English to me at least presents the connotative understanding that the property of badness could be interpreted as “the stupidity of being mean spirited and, thereby, psychologically sick”. Your expression somehow reminded me of this. :grin: Though, of course, so understood the concept can only apply to agents.

I think this may be a helpful way to reframe my debate with Bob Ross. — Leontiskos

I neglected to give @Bob Ross a mention in my previous post, but yes, the primary focus was the debate between the two of you.

On second thought, scratch the example I just gave of Achilles and the tortoise in finite quanta of space. While I still see deeper problems with such interpretation of motion, I've realized it can be addressed mathematically via ratios - and I don't want to get into debates regarding the nature of time and space. It was a case of me talking before thinking. I won't delete my previous post, though.

If movement is continuous then an object in motion passes through every 1nm marker in sequential order, but there is no first 1nm marker, so this is a contradiction. — Michael

To the best of my understanding, not within process philosophy.

I’ll first try to better explain my own current stance:

It's the the very marker you address that I take to be the conceptual measurement imposed: In process theory, there is no beginning nor any permanent thinghood, only continuous becoming. Like with quantum mechanics, wherein everything is a wave till measured. Whenever we measure, we quantify (and vice versa): one given, quantitative parts of that one given, multiple whole givens, and so forth. But the movement of whatever we quantify remains purely continuous, wave-like in this very limited sense.

We thereby quantify there being one arrow that is being projected. Likewise we quantify there being one target it is going to penetrate. Yet, as per process theory, both are otherwise merely processes of becoming themselves, that are forever in flux in manners devoid of any absolute beginning. We furthermore empirically know (this by imposing measurement/quantity) when the quantified arrow first starts its motion toward the target, we know that if travels through air via certain placements in space, and that it eventually hits the target whereupon the arrow stops its motion. But when we then try to quantify this very (here, by analogy, wave like) process of the arrows motion what we end up with are quanta of space that appear to be infinite in number. These, in turn, then facilitate Zeno’s paradox of the arrow.

I don’t know how to address this properly with the arrow paradox, so I’ll use Achillies and the tortoise instead:

Here suppose motion occurring in a finitely divisible (hence quantized) space. For the sake of argument, say this finitely divisible space from point A to point B has only ten divisions. The tortoise is at the fifth division of this space while Achilles is at the second division of this space—both moving toward the tenth division of space. How would conceiving of space in such finitely quantized manner change Zeno’s paradox so as to allow Achilles to catch up to the tortoise?

----

I so far can’t apprehend a coherent way demonstrating logically (non-empirically) that Achillies can catch up with the tortoise in such a scenario.

And this because at the very least physical motion (if not also any psychological change) seems to me to be completely continuous in its ontological nature. This again, as per core concepts of process theory. A continuous change which we measure/quantize and thereby impose upon the notion of fixed beginnings and fixed thinghood—which, in an ontology of flux, don’t in fact occur.

I acknowledge this train of thought deviates from the thread’s intent. But, to cut things short, I don’t yet understand how a finite quantization of space or of motion is interpreted as resolving Zeno’s paradoxes (as per my example above)—this given what we empirically know to be (Achilles can catch up with the tortoise).