Finally, it’s time to turn the tables on the persecution and rid these agencies of the political henchmen, as appears to be occurring. It’s great to see them unceremoniously removed and denied security clearance. — NOS4A2

Yep, because someone is getting kickbacks somewhere (probably true, as the world is a corrupt place) lets turn on all civil servants without due process. Haven't you been offered a post at the ministry of justice yet? Funny thing is, I am quite confident that NOS is actually a govt informant so I am refraining from too much interaction...

I hope all is well with you, Tobias, and that your corner of the world is not yet an oligarchic shitshow. — 180 Proof

Well, it does not seem to be an oligarchy but we elected the most far right populist government in the history of the country. The Netherlands is a coalition government country and now Anti-immigration party, pro-farming party, pro-business party and a middle to conservative party which used to be popular with the people now rule the country. Most parties do not have people with a lot of administrative experience. The institutions hold, but the Cabinet Ministers simply seem not to do very much. It is the opposite of the Trump government in terms of assertiveness. I do not mind that I must say and to be fair they do not take steps to demolish institutions like the courts of law or the administrative apparatus. At least for now they operate within the law. They have floated proposals though to curb the right to demonstration, which is worrying, but they still play by the democratic rulebook at least now. Funnily enough even right wing voters by a large majority would have voted Kamala...

I do wonder why neither in Europe nor in the US the left has not found an answer. The discourse has turned solely towards meritocracy to the detriment of solidarity. It is strange because there is sympathy for proposals to tax the rich and even to make international agreements to tackle climate change. I do not think the left is out of touch with the views of the constituency, I think the views of the constituency is out of touch with the left because of years of depoliticization and embracing a liberal conservative responsibilization discourse with productivity and selling oneself as a commodity in an international market place as mantras.

Dworkin's behind a paywall; please summarize. — tim wood

There are summaries, please do the leg work yourself and look it up. It is also discussed in Michael Sandel's lecture on the subject if I am not mistaken.

Does it occur to you to ask why perhaps any one class of people might have a greater facility in some endeavor than another? The question presupposes one or the other of two possibilities, one essentially racist in itself, the other itself evidence of the need for some affirmative action. — tim wood

Yes, a great many things occur to me, thank you, but what are you implying? Indeed there might be a need for affirmative action, I am not disagreeing with that.

As to the qualifications for any profession, are you one of those who wants all practitioners to be above average? — tim wood

It would be nice, though it is impossible. If all practioners were above average, the bar for 'average' would be raised. I would like there to be competent people yes, but competency is one of the possible criteria.

We know even from posts here on TPF there is no such thing as race. We expect, then, in any setting free of racism - or any other kind of prejudicial discrimination - to find equal representation of all kinds of people, or if not to be able to determine why not. When that day arrives of equal opportunity and equal representation, then will be the time for affirmative action to be put to rest, but not until. — tim wood

Yes, I agree. It seems we are not in disagreement, and in agreement, also with Dworkin I think. Like I said, I think there are two arguments for affirmative action. One s reparation for past wrongs and the other is equal representation. The facetious counter argument of 'color blindness' is poignantly laid to rest by 180 Proof.

@180 Proof :fire:

It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done. — Vera Mont

Good point!

Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

But Tzeentch I do not feel the need to make up any definitions. You do when you consider that the EU's treatment of Hungary is an indication of looming fascism. Nowhere though can withholding subsidies to member nations be found as an indication of fascism, except maybe Hungarian government propaganda, but I doubt even that does not go as far. I refer to the list provided by OP and made by Robert Paxton an expert on the subject.

I agree with you that diagnosing a certain government as fascist requires that ideology should be reflected in the institutional make up of a nation and requires practical events as indicators. At least, I assumed that you made this sensible point when you posed your challenge about 'nothing of note to happen'. However you refuse to back your point up by identifying what these evens of note might be.
That is a pity and I must assume that you mentioning 'nothing of note' is just idle rhetoric.

Hasn't that already happened? The thing that each side seems to forget is that increasing the hold on power by one side is increasing it for the other as well. Both sides are stroking each other's ambitions of power while manipulating citizens like yourself into thinking short-term that it is only the other side that is power-hungry. By supporting the two-party status-quo you are enabling them and their aspirations of power.

Neither side is concerned about the country turning communist or fascist. They just want more power and authority.

After reading this thread, any reasonable person would walk away understanding that both sides are hypocrites and is pointless to keep supporting the status quo.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. — Harry Hindu

I agree with you Harry, at least partially. The dems seem to have shot themselves in the foot and also maintain the status quo, not transforming the system itself, but keep expanding the powers of the executive branch. However that they are also short sighted, also power hungry and also willing to resist change does not mean they are ideologically equal.

'

in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Ohhh... so ' something of particular note' is limited to the whole country becoming fascist? Everything else is ' not of a particular note' and If people warn of troubling trends short of blown fascism gripping the good old U S of A, they are a bunch of hysterics. I see. Well, too bad, I would have liked those coins, but alas, people do not put their money where their mouth is no more....

I pointed not just to the EU's actions vis-á-vis Hungary, but at a wider trend in the EU, involving the fact that it is an untransparent, undemocratic, authoritarian den of nepotism and corruption, which makes it a likelier candidate to develop into fascism than the US - which isn't to say that it is likely that it will. — Tzeentch

It is untransparent, I give you that. There is a democratic deficit, yes well known and freely discussed in academic and civil society circles, but where is the authoritarian part? In what way are its actions against Hungary, an authoritarian country which ranks 85th in the RSF Press Freedom Index, indicative of fascism per Paxton or any other credible researchers list?

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

In a world of rivalry between super powers i which the US might have indeed faced existential those interventions were unlawful and altogether criminal, but might have had a different justification than simply 'America first' . What matters is the motive, per Kant, whom you know well. This motive conforms to the last two on Paxton's list:
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
- the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

The US invades and destroys other nations like its their national pastime. But the term for this is 'jingoism', not fascism. Fascism refers to how a state is organized, not to a foreign policy. — Tzeentch

Foreign policy cannot be separated from state organization, it is a part of it. A state is characterized by the way it exerts internal as well as external sovereignty. Or put differently, it projects its ideology inward as well as outward.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

Hmm compare the two quotes. There are certainly definitions of fascism thinkable under which the US can be labeled such ' for decades' as you suggest. I would not label the US as fascist in those days at all an still would not of course. Instead of bandying such words about I think we should agree on a list of common characteristics of fascism and see if these characteristics are displayed by a ruling government. You are dodging the point though. I laid out a couple of indicative events of note. They are all indications of a government moving to the far right (or far left but as there is not any indication of that I will not consider that). Will they or will they not occur?

Let me add to events of note by the way the prosecution of scores (a substantial number, not one, not two, but at least hundreds) of political opponents through either formal or informal means via employment bans and street intimidation.

For reference, these are your words from the previous post to which I reacted.

Who'd like to take me up on a bet that in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Now you are shifting from 'nothng of particular note' to a whole country becoming fascist. It is nigh impossible to label an entire country 'fascist', what we may assess is whether a country's government embraces a fascist ideology. The OP provided a list of characteristics, which seem reasonable to me. Can I conclude you renege on your offer? Such a pity, I was already counting them Tzeentch coins...

For the moment supporting Trump seems to be conducive to making a profit. As the rule of law is removed, so is market predictability and stability. I suspect there may already be some pressure from other billionaires for that dancing clown to tone it down a bit after his salute. — Banno

They will uphold all the regulation in place necessary to support profitable markets, but cut all regulation aimed at preventing market failures. Every legal barrier to innovation will be taken away. Mind you that might not even be a bad idea, it is just a big gamble that will leave a great many people very miserable.

I'm talking about fascism, obviously. Or anything catastrophic that is beyond the scope of what is normal for US presidents and is directly attributable to Trump. Keep in mind that he'll have Biden to contend with in terms of wanton incompetence — Tzeentch

Yes, obviously, but you seem to have a rather ... peculiar... notion of what that term means. you think that cutting the subsidies of a member of the club that frustrates the clubs overall policy amounts to ' looming fascism' whereas threatening military action against against entirely peaceful nations does not. So what you consider fascism and what not is for me entirely unpredictable.

I can handle your second category but I would say that the events of the 6th of January fall out of the scope of what is normal. So I take it to mean that you hold such events will not take place anymore, that there will be a peaceful transfer of power to a legitimate successor, either democrat or republican, after fair and transparent elections and that he will indeed step down after four years, yes? Nor will there be an obvious puppet nominated after merely tokenist Republican party elections, such as someone from his family? In short, in four years elections proceed in a fashion previously considered in ways that are "normal for US presidential elections"? Moreover there will not be other significant constitutional events of note right, something like, say, an unconstitutional federal intervention in Californian policy suspending the rights traditionally held by States?

Are you really willing to put such a hefty amount of Tzeentch coins on the line?

Yes I saw this one. Though I do not think it fascist necessarily. It is a despicable act though. It does fit the play book to discredit and intimidate institutions that speak truth to power. Every government that is not blinded by ideology organizes countervailing powers that stimulate debate on the basis of best available knowledge. countries that silence such institutions tend to like to rule by emotion, appealing to the sound intuition of the masses rather then to knowledge.

I still feel that those guys from the 1930s had most to say about fascism and the way it comes to power: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164?seq=1

Who'd like to take me up on a bet that in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics?

I bet a 1000 Tzeentch-coins on it. — Tzeentch

I certainly take you up on it. Of course we have to settle on what 'of note' means. I predict that a major constitutional event will take place that furthers or tries to further the hold on power of current government circles, including, but not limited to, Presidents being allowed a third term, prosecution of political and social high profile figures on drummed up charges, the administrative branch blatantly ignoring a supreme court verdict or something else of significant constitutional weight.

↪Banno As they do under any president. Trump's first presidency was nothing special, no fascism, no World War 3, no end of days, etc. and I see no reason to believe his second will be any different. — Tzeentch

I find the events of the 6th of January definitely a constitutional event of note.

I would also fin invading a country without any backing in international or humanitarian law to be a constitutional event of note.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

It all depends on what we want of our institutions. If we want them to be a reflection of society, it might make sense to hire people from certain ethnic background or gender.

Take the judiciary. We want people with the most thorough knowledge of the law and sharpest argumentative skills to populate the judiciary. We also want the judiciary to be diverse in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas from different perspectives, expose cultural biases it may have and display in practice that people are judged by their peers and not by a class of people foreign to them. Those two values, legal knowledge and argumentation and equal representation may be contradictory. The language of law is steeped in tradition, its practices are culturally formed and people with a greater command of the jurisdiction's tongue are at a great advantage in law school. That might lead to the judiciary being populated by a certain class of people. However, representation is important in law, the law of the land is based on a common network of trust, a legal order we subscribe to. Without fair representation such a legal order is unstable, because certain classes of people may lose their faith in it. Therefore it may well be necessary to remedy this dynamic and engage in policies that advantage certain groups normally at a disadvantage.

Look at this piece by Ronald Dworkin
here

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience. — Tzeentch

For reference I give Paxton's list below which to me seems a reasonable list of indicators of fascism. Notice how it does not include politically strong arming nations into stepping in line with a multi-level legal order of which it is part. You seem to equate fascism with policies you do not like. The great sovereign nation of Hungary though is free to leave the EU if it so pleases. The problem though is it benefits enormously from it, so it will not.

I think the EU has every right to demand a certain compliance. A monetary and economic union has no future when it does not have a certain level of political coordination. Would you feel better if the EU just decides to sever ties with Hungary or would you think that amounts to 'fascism' too?
Or perhaps you return from your misguided ways and concede you just made a rather poor argument which simply distracts from the discussion at hand?

Paxton's list

a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
the subordination of the individual to the primacy of the group;
the belief in a collective victimhood, justifying any action against its enemies without legal or moral limits;
the fear that individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences will lead to a decline in the group
the need for a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
the need for male authority culminating in a national chief who incarnates the group’s historical destiny;
the leader’s instincts are superior to abstract and universal reason;
the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

We always compare ourselves to North European nations and wonder why we are not like you. But this is a utopia. It is impossible because our idiosyncrasies are different. — javi2541997

Spain is its own country with historical ebbs and flows. It has wonderful traditions, style and climate. Year around sun and broad stretches of flatland must be good for solar power... I am no economist, but tides will turn.

Anyway, I will always be fond of Spain, the Spanish language, its way of life. Just enjoy and do not fret much about something rather artificial as a 'country'.

Black Sabbath - Black sabbath
The Number of the Beast - Iron Maiden (I know SOASS is commonly ranked higher, it is the many memories)
Don't Break the Oath - Merciful Fate
Rust in Peace - Megadeth
Master of Puppets - Metallica

Well, if you read this, I would like to ask you:

Did you really notice an improvement in us?

Did you ever care about the death of Franco and then the born of democracy here? — javi2541997

Well, I am not Spanish speaking (basic level), not am I geographically close to Spain, but I am European and from a European perspective Spanish history is important, and bound up with its history, both personal and political. We have no idea about the 'being of Spain'. We do however very well know the importance of Spain in Europe and as I am born in 1975, we also know about the death of Franco and cared a great deal. I was just born than but many households rejoiced. Franco was the main European enemy of the leftist Europeans which were numerous in the mid-seventies.

In fact, I owe my existence to the demise of Franco, well his imminent demise. for a period in 1974 Franco abdicated as head of state due to illness and Juan Carlos took over. It was then that my parents thought it was alright to visit Spain again. They hadn't for many years due to their opposition to Franco as nearly all of the Dutch and certainly the more left leaning kind. It was during that holiday, during which they saw old friends and travelled through Spain, that I was conceived.

That holiday too my parents toasted with their Spanish friends to formally end any grievances about the '80 years war'. Just like I was conceived in Spain, the Netherlands was conceived breaking away from the Spanish empire, seceding formally in in 1581 with the Act of Abjuration and establishing the Dutch Republic. War tore through the country until 1648 when Spain recognized Dutch independence in de Westphalian peace.

You see the Dutch did expect the Spanish Inquisition, it expected more, the 'blood council' and the 'council of troubles', all religious and colonial Spanish courts. For us the Spanish inquisition was nothing to laugh at, but we learned in school is was a zealously catholic force that tried to break the spirit of protestantism. Ohh no, it was not the remnants of Islamic culture in Spain that we feared, it was the catholic fanaticism of Phillips the second. We had a motto in those days: "Rather Turkish that Papal!", it was clear where our sympathies laid and it helped that the Ottoman Sultan rather generously supported the Dutch rebellion.

The days of the Spanish fury are long gone and Spain became a beloved country for Dutch holiday makers. It was affordable and warm, cheerful and relaxed. The memory of 'vacation' will in my mind be tied to the memory of Spain because my parents went as well. Franco was dead and the paradores were open and wanted tourists and we went just like many of the Dutch. the first few words in a foreign language I learned were in Spanish: 'Un fanta por favor'. When I was four parents decided that if I wanted something I could ask for it myself and so I did. Sure, I was a small yellow blond little boy with small round glasses. not only did I get a fanta I also got a caress from the waiter or waitress who brought it. Still in my mind no people are as nice to children as the Spanish are. Yes, now still the country is flooded by my countrymen, but perhaps a different kind. Many a youngster has experienced her or his first holiday on the Spanish beaches, his first love affair, first time and first heart break.

Yes, the young now might not care about Franco, but I knew his name when I was a child and especially later when I became interested in history. You see, after the 80 years war and before Spain the holiday destination there was Spain as the first battleground against fascism. "No paseran!" was the cry of the Spanish Republicans and of the many Dutch leftist volunteers who joined the international brigades. Those were deemed heroes and when my father wrote a book with interviews with people who were young in the 1930s one of the questions was whether they went to join the Spanish civil war and if not, why not. Guernica and the unfair fight, those were the stories we were told when we talked about Spain.

Spain, yes, I understand your slightly ... melancholic post Javi. Is Spain taken seriously in the EU? Well, yes, but of course far gone are the times when Europe was drowning in the silver from Potosi, the place my lover is from. It is the curse of all imperial nations to decline and reminisce about the past. It is no France, no Germany in terms of influence. I guess in the EU its practical influence is comparable to that of the Netherlands, its old enemy. It is not as revered for its culture as Italy. Its wines rank below those of France. Its philosophical importance was once great actually, but they do not remember the Arab and Jewish philosophers from Spain's golden century. Yet still, Spain is a magical country in Europe. Owing in fact to its mix of cultures. Catholic Spain with its imperial splendid right next to the no less splendid Islamic Alhambra. The profane beaches with their endless line up of hotels next to the wonderful libraries and literature of Spain.

Yes, and those few words of Spanish I learned? They won my ex wife over when I proclaimed much to the surprise of the rest of the room that Spanish was a far more beautiful language than Italian. I sung a Spanish song for her and that sealed the deal. She is Turkish by the way... To old enemies and alliances my friends. Spain though, will always rank among my most favorite countries.

Ay Carmela, ay Carmela....

Some from places far away:
Turkey:


Puglia:



The Netherlands (Believe me it is far away, at least in time, for me):

I am the first to admit that the feeling is not entirely rational, also not philosophical... So I wonder, I have that feeling based on gut instinct, but have we all? Or is there something I have maybe missed that others do see? The meta question here might be philosophical or psychological, on what do we base our predictions of future events?

I am derailing actually, just wanting to say that, no, my feeling is not rational. It is very firm though :smile:

I really wonder on what people base their predictions, including myself actually. To me there is no shadow of a doubt that Trump will win. There are authoritarian tendencies rising in the world and the economy is hurting many people. Those two tendencies lead me to think Trump will win and there is a high turn out among republicans... Of course, the polls are even and I am not even American so what do I know. Still, not a shadow of a doubt... My feeling must be based on instinct, a hunch, some sort of worldview perhaps, but cannot be fully rational. So, my question to you, on what information / knowledge / feelings do you base your confidence that either Trump or Harris will win?

Thanks for the mention Javi, but I know nothing of corporate law. Benkei is a much better source here for Dutch law on crypto...

Indeed it is. What many don’t realize, though, is that he isn’t simply repeating Leibnitz’s question, he is deconstructing it. What he is really asking is , ‘why do we exclusively associate the copula ‘is’ with the notion of something, of presence, and not also the Nothing’? — Joshs

Thanks! I did start reading it once, (never finished) so I must have read this passage. Apparently it did not stick with me as it should have. :)

Oh yes, he "tried" this "modern idea" like a few others, iirc: Laozi-Zhuangzi, Heraclitus, Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus ... Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein et al — 180 Proof

Hmm, I think there is a difference. I do not know about Heraclitus, Epicurus, Seneca. The ancients are interesting, but this sweeping comparison I dare not make because it may well be anachrinistic. I do think he does something different from Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and something very similar to Merleau Ponty, Gadamer and even Foucault. I think Nietzsche is his closest predecessor. He does not ground his phenomenology in logic and thought. He decenters res cogitans in favour of res extensa. Akin to Spinoza, but Spinoza held on to a geometric method. I do think he tried to overcome dualism, while putting practice ahead of logos.

I am a historical person and, of course, he owes a lot to others. Moreover, I do not share his craving for authenticity. I think philosophy took a wrong turn in that respect. A wrong turn with which it still wrestles, considering how many words thought is spend on the notion of 'identity' and not in a logical sense. I do think his influence on modern thought is undeniable and for that alone he deserves study.

"What is the meaning of Being (or Seyn)? I believe is Der Rektor-Führer's "main question"↪180 Proof ... At any rate, "why is there anything at all?" on my profile page is just a prompt, or TPF conversation starter – dismissal of the Leibnizian (ontotheo) fetish – and has never been my aporia¹. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I know 180, it was meant in jocular fashion. The aversion against 'onto-theology' you actually share with Heidegger. And yes, his view on authenticity you do not. Yet I think, Heidegger and you are not that far off in thinking, but are in writing and fortunately, in political belief... What Heidegger tried to do was to root thinking in practice, which is a rather modern idea. The way he did it... well, we will not quibble there I think.

Are you saying Heidegger’s main question is ‘ why is there something rather than nothing’? — Joshs

I do not know if it is 'the question'... it is his opener in his 'einführung in die Metaphysik" I believe...

No doubt, Heidi is very important but, imho, more as a negative example – how not to philosophize – than anything else. — 180 Proof

Ahhh 180 proof, bashing Heidegger again?

From your profile:
i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of the possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible, to wit:
(B1) there is not any possible version of the actual world that is 'the negation of the actual world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(B2) there is not any possible world in which it is true that 'a possible world is not a possible world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(C) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Answer.

You do realize you are introducing your readers to your thought, via Heidggers' main question? In good German I would say: "was sich liebt das neckt sich" ... :wink:

My criteria for uninteresting here:
1) The subject matter is small/pedantic/minutia-mongering
2) The answers to the problem are not new or informative but a rehash of what we already think, or a rehash of previous philosopher but in drag (e.g. We must take for granted certain things like "Other people exist" in order to move on with our language games.. this is already our common sense notion made writ large into a profound statement- Hinge propositions). — schopenhauer1

The guy who said snow is white if and only if snow is white... That's like ... deep ... ya know...

Thank you for being such a nice and well-informed person. — Athena

Thank you for your nice compliments! And of course for this interaction. :)

I appreciate the distinction you made between the candidates. They are both stupid promises! Can I please have another choice? :lol: — Athena

No you cannot. They are not both stupid promises. One is a danger to democracy the other might be unwise, though I do not really know, I do not know nearly enough about US the economic situation. In any case the two promises are on utterly different scales, that is the problem. So no, there is no 'other choice', there is a rather existential one to make.

Please tell more about Germany because this is so paradoxical. The US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education and picked up German military ideas as well. However, I have come across info that makes me think the Germans are doing better. Such as you saying the German president does not have as much power as a US president and I think that means the Germans are doing something right that US is not doing. I read education in Germany encourages the young to pay attention to their personal experience instead of the US's excessive focus on empirical information. — Athena

Well, I do not know about 'better' but they are different forms of government and that is because they have a different constitutional system. The constitution has everything to do with the amount of power a president has and also which checks and balances are in place. Not just the constitutional document as such but the whole constitutional order. Now in the German constitutional order the president is mostly a ceremonial figurehead, an elder statesman. Currently it is Walther Steinmaier. He is not the head of government though, the head of government is the chancellor, similar to a prime minister, a title unknown in the US. It is precisely the constitution that creates such differences. Now the German constitution (Basic law) has been written just after the second world war, with the prime imperative being to prevent a power grab by any one person or party. Germany has coalition governments also something unknown in the US. That is because it does not have a 'winner takes all' constitutional system. The funny thing is the German basic law has been inspired by the constitutions of the allied nations, including the US.

See, things are never clear cut. Of course the US has taken over ideas from German education because Germany was arguable the most advanced country in the 19th century, However, the Germans must have learned a thing or two about bureaucracy from the French, bureau being a French word after all.

Currently I think serious flaws in the US constitutional system are appearing, but so are they in Europe. Constitutional systems and institutional designs can add to the resilience of a political system, but they can never make it endure. The US constitution is actually a logical one given the US history and the wish to curb the dominance of the most populous states, but it ends up being a system in which only a few votes from people in a few states really matter. The US system, especially the politicization of the supreme court, leads to a very partisan and competitive democracy. It has its good sides, people are connected to their politicians, but it also has its bad sides, a tendency for polarization.

As for the minimum wage question, I am no economist. I will therefore pass on that question. I think there might be options though, you could for instance bring top tier incomes down through taxation to name one...

What a delicious question. :nerd: Also what does the US Constitution have to do with the power of a president? US presidents gained a lot of power during the Roosevelt administration and again with Reagan and again after 911. Hum, I am thinking I need to be more careful because this is a serious subject and I hope you demand a good reply and don't let me slide with unsupported insinuations. I found a link that makes my point. — Athena

What I mean is, you seem to equate the promise 'you will never need to vote again' on a par with the promise to raise minimum wages. The first comes down to the abolition of democracy the second may have good or bad economic consequences. They are not on the same level. You seem to present them as a dilemma, but they are not. One is an outright attack on the constitutional order the other a rather mundane policy proposal. The constitution has everything to do with the power of the president as the constitution circumscribe his or her power, that is what constitutions do, among other things.

That is not a full explanation but I doubt anyone regular citizen can provide a more detailed explanation and it is citizen ignorance and complacy that gives the President so much power. We are not politically aware and Trump shares a lot with Hitler. If you want to question me, I will attempt to give answers.

No, I think your quote is spot on and actually chimes in will with insights from political science. There is a shift from legislative to administrative power. Actually we may witness that in Europe as well. The US system though is already strongly presidential. The president of the US has a lot more power institutionally speaking than say, the president of Germany.

From the rest of your post I think we agree. But then, if we do, why would you say you do not support Harris? You might dislike her political views but at least she allows for the possibility you vote her out of office again... I do not know if Christian nationalism is 'unamerican', neither do I know if fascism is 'un-german', or that war crimes are 'un-dutch'. I do not think there is anything like an immutable character to a nation. All I know is that institutions need to be defended, because the institutional structure can come down. I'd be be worried of any candidate that promises to overturn the constitutional order.

Trump goes so far as to claim we will never have to vote again if he is elected because he will resolve all our problems for us. Kamala Harris promises to raise minimum wages but I don't know how this can happen without inflation and closing businesses that depend on cheap labor. I don't think we know enough to make good judgments and this thread is about global ramifications. — Athena

If you weigh the two options, one promise is that you will never vote again, indicating Trump will become ruler without any election and the other is an economic policy that may or may not have adverse consequences for businesses, do you think they are on the same level of constitutionality?

Policy choice A: the abolition of a fundamental tenet of democratic rule, free elections
Policy choice B: an economic measure within a package of a whole lot of others that might have adverse consequences for business.
.......
The two cannot be compared in relation to the threat to democratic government.

Through this forum, I have learned what I consider a fascist order is throughout Europe and this must be so because of the competition for world resources. We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. Technology is changing our lives a lot and that includes the power of governments. Elements of fascism and for sure technology make a government strong. Education is very important to all this. — Athena

What would make you say that? A fascist order is an order in which the state is held in supreme regard. The body politic is mass mobilized for the good of the state and individual rights are abolished in name of some kind of social unity, it is generally a nationalist and militarist creed.

This encyclopedia Brittanica's definition: "Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."

I assure you no government is as of yet fascist in Europe. Sure we have a state bureaucracy, thank god, but we are allowed to own businesses, we have human rights and thank heavens they are even oftentimes respected. We can vote our leaders our leaders out of office, express opinions contrary to the state and in many countries military service is abolished. You might think every infringement on the free market is 'fascist', but that is a mistake. Actually every type of market economy needs a substantial amount of regulation to keep markets at least semi-free.

We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. — Athena

What just say now, uttered in a side sentence, is actually a deep seated fascist belief. Our nation is necessarily in competition with yours and it cannot be any other way. That is a fascist line of reasoning because it legitimates authoritarian state control. However even the history of the United States itself shows that cooperation trumps conflict. Fascism might be closer to your home than you may think...

We are getting to the heart of the matter I think and there we find edges. Not everything here will become clear or fit perfectly, but that is what I like to do here, argue and see how far we can get in understanding things. it is a caveat though, some things appear not well worked through and that is possibly because the forest here gets thicker and the cutting of a path harder.

Such as, the authority in the previous element of the discussion. That exists. It's authority exists (perhaps by consent, so it's some levels above the mechanics of an interpersonal obligation) and is arbitrarily enforced to the emotional contentedness of the majority of it's subjects and little, if anything else, is involved. In this case, I can't quite see how you could then still claim obligations exist. — AmadeusD

I do not think that entirely fits. On two accounts actually. Also a government that is not chosen by its people, say the government of the Soviet Union, still promulgated law and therefore on this positivist account you now seem to embrace (if only for the sake of argument perhaps), that law also backs up obligations. Secondly, obligations may also arise due to customs and not backed up by sanctions, at least not formal sanctions. For instance if you enter into a promise with your brother to return you the book. Whether it is legal or not is I think overly formal. The obligation arises out of the institutions of promising, contracting perhaps even principles of good conduct, legal or otherwise. The are institutional, so historically grown ways of speaking and acting that causes people to expect certain ways of speaking and acting. I think institutions are historically grown and determined in continuous practice so much so that they become part and parcel of our everyday world. That is where I part ways with the positivist.

The same can be said of an "obligation". It's an empty space between commitment and expectation. But there is nothing there. I guess, while this example is pretty parochial in terms of what concepts its engaging:

Person A promises;
Person B that they will attend X event on date Y specifically to accompany/support. Meaning B being present is crucial.
Person B, unfortunately, perishes on date V (i.e prior to the maturity of the 'promise').
Person A feels their promise is unfulfilled.
Person B is ... dead. There is nothing to oblige. They couldn't feel one way or the other. There is no obligation. — AmadeusD

I would say the obligation ended with the death of B. In this case I would construe the obligation as conditional, namely "I will be at event X under the condition that you will also be there". It does not change the fact that there was a promise between A and B and that A incurred the obligation to be there in order to assist B. That part of the promise being unfulfillable the promise becomes moot and so does the obligation that resulted from it. I have no qualms about saying an obligation exists and now does not exist anymore, due to some sort of circumstance ending it. Things pop in and out of existence all the time, they break, die, melt, etc. Obligations do not physically die but they may end, as the statute of limitations proves time and time again. (Although as mentioned very early on, in the Netherlands we have the legal figure of the 'natural obligation', an obligation which is unenforceable but still on the subject, also after exceedance of the statute of limitations, for instance on someone that stole a bike 20 years ago, he is still under the natural obligation to return it to the original owner)

The situation has not changed for person A. They mentally/emotionally feel their 'obligation'. — AmadeusD

I would not see why ... If they do, it is fine of course, but every good friend would tell them that under this condition they have no obligation anymore, at least I would assume...

1. Obligations do not exist. People with commitments and expectations exist; or
2. Obligations can exist in a positivist sense only.

Now, that gets messy - the kinds of 'authority' vary, and the enforceability varies etc.. etc.. etc. etc.. but the overall point seems clear to me: the obligation only exists as an instrument of authority and does not obtain without it. However, I now anticipate some type of "well, your emotional reaction is a kind of authority". Yes, it is. But it is not an obligation. It's an enforcement mechanism. So, "obligation" is the wrong word, I'm just trying to be least-confusing. — AmadeusD

I am actually with you on 1, People with commitments and expectations exist. But between them certain relations are established. Your account, like those of Michael and Frank, still seems to individualistic to me and committed to the idea that things exist but relations do not. I feel like echoing Wittgenstein suddenly(something I really rarely do :eek:) "The world is the totality of facts not of things" (prop. 2 of the Tractatus). They live within a wholly constructed world of relations. My questions would be, why deny them existence?

I know this view does not solve all problems. As you rightly state, there is some sort of 'authority' needed. I seem to hold a very broad view of authority, but there are limits. Fortunately you seem to also agree that authority varies and enforceability varies. I would not put all my eggs in the basket of enforceability though. I think the enforcement mechanism is actually logically posterior in the sense that we feel some obligations must be protected and cannot be ignored. To ensure that we impose a system of sanctions on some. Yet, to have an obligation I think there must be a relation to the other person perhaps or to so third party, which may be a community or whatever. I am with you that merely an emotional state does not bring on obligations. They are not private they are public in the sense that they must have a moment of externalization, often by certain procedure. That can be an elaborate and public procedure such as a marriage, or a very small and informal procedure by uttering the word 'I promise'. Also not all obligations are equally serious, like not all doors are equally heavy.

Seems to me here you've inadvertently dropped your point here, and picked up mine? I'm only hearing, as conclusions to these points "It leaves a bad taste" or "It would hurt the relationship between entity X and entity Y". Yep. Not an obligation? Onward... — AmadeusD

No, as per my view outlined above, there is something more than "it leaves a bad taste" or "it would hurt the relationship between X and Y". The law might demand it, or custom might demand it. I might even go as far as saying 'the social order demands it', though I also feel antsy with such sweeping reifications. Yet I think the point of an obligation is exactly that. The institution of promising is violated when promises are not kept. That is not only a private issue between people, but a social issue because the institution of promising is an important pattern by which we govern our conduct and negotiate our journey through the world.

This explains a whole lot about your responses around Marriage, but this just makes it all the more obvious there exists a legal obligation and where there is no enforcing authority, there is no obligation. And, here, "obligation" actually just means "threat of consequence". — AmadeusD

I think I addressed this above. Threat of sanction does not explain it and I think sanctions are posterior. If it was mere sanction you and probably the others would be right. The word usually used in jurisprudence and in socio legal studies is legitimacy, but that is a beast that does not clarify much. I would hold that legitimacy derives from adhered to procedure, the notion that this is they way things should be done.

Only hte brainstate changes, and (in this story) only for the promissor. — AmadeusD

The funny thing is that here our disagreement has some interesting consequences. To me a false promise (a promise one is not intended to keep) is still a promise as good as any. That the brainstate differs for me matters nothing. To me it is actually a dire consequence of the idea that promises are related to brain states that one must say that whether a promise is made or not is totally subjective (depending on the brain state of the promisor. As we do not have access to it we never know whether a promise is real or false. What is false is actually not the promise, that is real and should be kept, what is false is the intention of the promisor.

If you, personally, jettison your promise you have no obligation. Even if we're going to grant the obligation "thing" status, its collapsed because you pulled your support out from it. — AmadeusD

I truly wonder why you would hold on to a theory that grants this result. "If I feel I have no obligation, I have no obligation". That is odd because an obligation is almost by definition a burden. Why would one want to keep a burden? If that would be a convincing position the whole notion of obligations and promises and what not, would collapse no?

It doesn't. One is simply "legitimate authority". The behaviour is the same (i touched on this earlier in this post, funnily enough). What could possibly be said to be different?

"Do this or I'll break your legs" - Dealer
"Do this or I'll take your kids and give them to another set of parents temporarily" - Gov'munt

I may prefer my legs broken, personally. But that aside, there are given rules, and given consequences to not following them. The "culturally embedded" concept of promise functions the same in both of the above scenarios. In fact, I would argue that both of these scenarios exist precisely because the obligation itself is no where to be found. Enforcement solves that. — AmadeusD

There is a world of difference and your example makes clear you see the difference too. you do not say: "Do this or I'll break your legs" - Dealer
"Do this or I'll break your legs" - Gov'munt

That is logical because a government does not say that. If it does it acts no better than the dealer and its exercise of power is wholly arbitrary like the dealer's. The taking of your kids is probably an action to protect them, taken in accordance with proper procedure and therefore legitimate and therefore you have the obligation to do so. What the government does is to force you to adhere to a norm, in this example it is not clear to what norm, but probably something relevant to your kids' well being. The dealers' threat is a means to force you to carry out an action brought force by his whim. I think an argument can well be made that if a government would behave like a dealer and threaten in the same vein, the obligations its command are moot as its reign lost legitimacy. (The sanctions of govt could be every bit as severe, often even moreso, but that is not the issue I think.)

Purely on a legal mind-to-legal mind basis, what do you mean here? Is the assertion that there is some kind of legal principle which actually transcends human minds? I have never been able to get on board with anything remotely close to "natural law" type arguments so Im really curious. — AmadeusD

I am not a natural law theorist. The legal principles I hold to exist stem from the coherence, consistency and goals of the body of laws itself. They might not be stipulated as such, but they are the principles in accordance to which our law is laid down and can be construed by comparing and interpreting its rules in a consistent manner. A legal principle for instance is the notion that promises should be kept. One is also that "no one may profit from his own wrong" as in Riggs v Palmer. I am not going further into Dworkinian philosophy of law though. The difference though between these and natural law principles is that these principles stem from the law itself, our customary interpretation of it and even from our customs themselves, but they are not transcendental. They are immanent.

It has been a long post but worthwhile to write. Now I am off to bed...
Take care,
Tobias

You could (and please don't take this is prickly... it really is not) — AmadeusD

It is, but I dislike using shorthand. Usually it is just to show off your knowledge and send a reader into the woods, because something like legal positivism is stated all sorts of ways. I believe in explanation, not some reference to a certain position. Though, yes, this is a simplistic legal positivist account. However, I am also not necessarily a legal positivist. I am more Dworkinian in any case as I do believe in the reality ;) of legal principles and reject judicial discretion in hard cases but I think I hold a different position from Dworking as well, as will become clear from this post.

This is also true. This speaks to our previous fracas but not directly. You can establish the existence of some 'obligation' in the sense of "you promised X" happened in time. You cannot establish "the promise" as it's own entity(this to me seems beyond discussion. — AmadeusD

Yes, but I do not think that is at all necessary. It seems that you and Frank and Michael are under the assumption that to be really real entails mind independence. I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make.

There is no logical compass that lands on "fulfill your promises". — AmadeusD

It needs no logical compass. It simply needs a society in which one expect from one another that one fulfills his promises. Of course other societies are thinkable in which the notion of promise does not exist. However we live in ours. The fact that some concept is dependent on our societal interaction doesn't make it any less real. The 'I do' establishes a marriage under the right procedures. That marriage is as real as say, a doorknob. We live in a world with doors, similarly, we live in a world with marriages. In an apocalyptic world in which our institutions have broken down, I am still married, because in the world that preceded the apocalypse the marriage was duly ordained. However, I might die and all the people remembering the institution of marriage might die. Than indeed, there is no marriage anymore. Same holds for the doorknob, in a world without doors, the material shaped in what we have known as doorknob is meaningless matter.

That's only ever going to be relevant case-by-case and is, in fact, a moral decision which only exists at the moment it is made. — AmadeusD

This I really cannot follow. At what time does it exist then? There is a moment it existed and was real and then, poof, it is gone? And when is the decision actually made, when it is made in my head or when it is uttered? I think one would prefer a theory that avoids such questions... I also actually would not know what is implied with it. The decision can be undone at any time? If it cannot and you are still bound to the decision, what is it then that binds?

What is the promise? There is no possible answer to this without simply describing something else (a brainstate, a decision, or one's personally 'ought' motivation - Banno likes to fulfill promises, it seems. Fine). — AmadeusD

It is not Banno that holds Banno accountable. Others do. Promises are relevant within a network of people for which they are relevant, but see above. What I think is the problem is that you want an explanation in terms of some sort of individual thing to which it refers, a brain state or one individual decision by an individual person. Promises, just as obligations are relational and come into being within a network of relations. I would really not know why one would hold a position that cannot make sense of obligations. I see it as a flaw of the metaphysical position in question, not the flaw of the notion of the obligation.

It does not create an obligation beside you wanting to keep your promise, as it were. It is yours. It isn't 'out there' as anything. — AmadeusD

This displays the previous point aptly. It is not me wanting to keep my promise. I might not want it at all. I might have to and legally I might well be forced to. Promises do not rest on the individual will of the promisor, but on the relationship the promise has established between promisor and promisee. I think law and actually all social rules emerge out of patterns of behavior of people. It is culturally embedded. That does not make it arbitrary, it makes it historical. It is different from 'command of the sovereign', it is also different from: "rules made by a competent authority", it is also not "the heaven of concepts above", it is a set of culturally developed practices that have attained consistence and resilience over time. My position comes down to what I know as 'interactionism', but I do not know if that is a thing in American jurisprudence, or rather native to my law faculty.

Well, the answer there is pretty simple. You see an obstacle he (we) don't. Is that a bit more diplomatic here? — AmadeusD

Yes, but I think missing the obstacle causes you to stumble. You need to hold on to all kinds of obscure positions, namely that a promise exists one moment and stops existing the next or that a promise should really be conceived of as a brain state or that an obligation only reaches as far as I am willing to be bound to the promise. That is incoherent because the whole notion of promise exists to make sure I perform the task promised even if I am unwilling to. Michael apparently thinks it does not matter whether one is ordered by a gang of robbers or whether one is taxed by legitimate authorities. If a theory causes me to have to embrace such notions, I consider the theory implausible.

Is that a bit more diplomatic here? — AmadeusD

Even though we still disagree, it is in any case a lot nicer to answer this post, so I do appreciate your effort at diplomacy :flower: :wink:

So you are chasing your own tail when you ask what 'ought' means? I also do not know why you keep repeating the question in that case...

Anyway, we are back to the difference that is in play, between a command and an obligation. Well, that we went over already. Being obliged is different from being commanded, because a command is uttered by whim of the commanding entity while an obligation is incurred by following specific procedures, such as promising or contracting etc. What I do not understand is why you would hold on to a theory that does not explain a certain distinction we all feel that is relevant in favour of a theory that cannot make heads or tails of it.

No, it's not. I want to know what "you ought do this" means. I don't know why I need to keep repeating this? — Michael

Yes and it can mean different things in different contexts, that is why no one can give you an exact definition. That is actually more often the case with concepts. If I tell you 'you ought to lose weight' I might mean 'it is good for you to lose weight'. If I tell you 'you ought to see this movie' I might mean that you will certainly enjoy this movie. If I tell you, you ought to pay the fine it means you are obliged to pay the fine.

It's not divine command theory, but it is a command theory. Ought-claims are commands phrased as if they were truth-apt propositions. — Michael

Well, on some version of social contract theory maybe. In any case the agreement is implied when following the procedure and cannot be retracted. For instance you cannot say: I promise to bring to back book X, but do not want to be bound to do it". That would be contradictory.

I don't understand what this means. Is this a physical compulsion? A , psychological compulsion? — Michael

Well, you tell me. You would like to bring it into agreement with a materialist worldview I guess. Use some introspection, how do customs compel? If you see an outstretched hand with the intention to shake yours, by what force do you feel compelled to shake back that hand? In any case you know you have a choice, so how does that outstretched hand compels you to choose? I do not feel the need to psychologize of physicalize behavioral patterns.

Because you engage in the circular claim "you ought do what this authority tells you to do". I want to know what the "you ought" part of this sentence means. A reference back to this authority is no explanation at all. — Michael

Legitimate authority. I do not know what you really want, as an explanation, but as I said one can only explain by reference to certain kind of distinctions. I can tell you the difference between a command and a legal act, or a command and a contract, or promise. What you want is an explanation why we ought to do things. The reasons are different, sometimes we ought to do things to stay alive, sometimes because some bandit threatens to do it and sometimes because you are under an obligation to do it. Such an obligation may be incurred by your promises, or your contracts, or by damages you caused another party. The difference is that you incurred am obligation because of submission to legitimate authority (whether agree or disagree in that particular instance is not relevant, you submitted yourself under its rules), you ought to keep yourself alive because of some psychological drive I guess and you ought to obey the commands of the bandit because of the same reason. They are different though from obligations. That was the point.

I addressed this here. All this talk of "violating obligations" and "being bound" is vacuous and superfluous. It is just the case that the law says "anyone who is found guilty of murder is to be imprisoned". We then choose to murder or not with this knowledge in mind, and will inevitably face whatever consequences follow if we choose to murder. There's nothing more to it. — Michael

You think it is vacuous but it is not. Your view of punishment is misguided. We do not punish because we like to do so, but because murder is wrong. On your view law is simply arbitrary. It is not. There is a pattern to it and conforms by and large to the way we treat other and like to be treated by others. this congruence between law and morality is inexplicable in your scheme. Hence, it lacks any clarificatory strength. But hey, if you want to use a scheme of thought which cannot make sense of the world as it is, be my guest.

Which just means that I agree to do what some outside authority says. — Michael

And indeed command theory as a theory of jurisprudence has been rendered obsolete after the Hart Austin debate. But as said, hold onto it if you must...:ok: Here it is in very simplified form. https://carneades.pomona.edu/2016-Law/04.HartAustin.html

What does "you ought" mean? What does "I am bound" mean? — Michael

I keep telling you and you keep running around in circles. You are bound means that there is an outside authority to which you have submitted by following its procedures, that exert some sort of legitimate power over you that compels you to do x. This is different from the command to do x. A command is based on whim and therefore arbitrary whereas a promise or any speech act that incurs obligations is based on procedure. I can only explain distinctions by focusing on its differences. Of course you can ask me what compels means and what power means but than you are like the child that just goes nahnahnahnah when something is explained.

Whenever someone uses such phrases, all I understand is "do this" (or at best "so-and-so says to do this"). I might even understand it with an additional "or else". — Michael

Yes, that is commonly what you understand, and what many people at face value understand. Even Austin did. Yet the distinction between a command and legitimate authority needs to be made when one wants to make sense of law and obligation. Your everyday understanding of those terms is fine in general, but not when engaging in conceptual analysis.

If they mean more than this then I need it explained. I keep asking for someone to make sense of these phrases and nobody ever does. — Michael

I just did. You just do not accept the explanation and want something more. I cannot force you to accept anything, in other words, you are not obliged to ;) However, if you like to make sense of law and obligation it is wise to accept it.

What does the law have to do with obligation? Does "you ought do this" just mean "do this or you will be fined/imprisoned"? I have no problem with this latter claim. — Michael

No it does not. That would be spanning the horse behind the carriage. You will be imprisoned because you violating a certain obligation (not all) which is laid down in law, under which you are bound by participating in society and in a democratic society at least, is legitimized by democratic procedures, hence is not arbitrary. The imprisonment is also not arbitrary and based on some whim but again on legitimate authority and proper procedure.

So I agree to do what I'm told. That's fine. But what does it mean to say that I ought do what I'm told? — Michael

Even if you agree or not you ought to do what you are told, because the authority that governs your conduct is legitimate. I might like to not fulfill the terms of my contract, but that is irrelevant, because I am bound by the terms of it. It is not mere whim, not by me, or my counter party. but my submission to a relevant institution.

Do you just mean that it is pragmatic for us to do what we promise to do? That's fine. But what does it mean to say that we ought do what we say we will do? — Michael

No, even when it is not pragmatic for you to do what you are told you ought to do it. If it was pragmatism, 'efficient breach of contract', would be a legal thing to do. It is not.

And what special relevance is the verb "promise"? If instead of saying "I promise to do this" and instead of saying "but you promised", what if we said "I will do this" and "but you said you would"? — Michael

It makes known your intention to oblige. I will do it given an indication of your conduct. I promise to do it expresses your wish to also be bound to do it (as you signal your acceptance of the institution of promising). Imagine the following perfectly believable conversation: "Will you help me move the house next month?" "sure I will!" "You will?" "yeah yeah, sure!" "You promise?" "Well, I can't promise it at this point because my father is ill and I might need go to the hospital at exactly that day, so I can't promise anything, but if there is a chance, I definitely will".

This certainly seems like the ordinary thing we do. Does this then also entail that we enter into an obligation every time we assert our intention to do something, irrespective of whether or not it's a promise? — Michael

Like I said, words are always context dependent. Sometimes an "I will" is construed as a promise. Certainly during a wedding ceremony. The "I do" actually has large scale legal consequences. In general though, no, that is the difference between expressing an intention and a promise.

This all seems to reduce to the claim that some authority has told me to do something. I understand and accept that. What I cannot make sense of is the conclusion "therefore I ought do as I'm told". What does this conclusion add that hasn't already been covered by the fact that some authority has told me to do something?

You seem to think that there is the command and then also the obligation. I don't know what this second thing is, or how/why it follows from the command. — Michael

That this authority is recognized as legitimate. That you yourself has submitted to this procedure, or in any case, that by participating in the social fabric of society you accept the rules of the game. We all tacitly assume and subscribe to the principle that promises need to be kept and that therefore a: "but you promised!" is a reasonable reproach. One that can of course be countered, for instance by appealing to 'force majeure', but that in any case the claim itself is not illegitimate. That is different from the orders of a gang leader when he robs the bank and tells you to give him the money.

I think we're just going to disagree here. I said earlier that what exists is people saying and doing things. The rest is feelings and ad hoc explanations. I was hoping you'd agree that obligation comes down to personal sentiment because we could finally explore the way the private language argument blasts away the veracity of the stories we tell about obligation. But instead, you're saying the binding is out there for all to see. I'm not sure what you're talking about. — frank

Of course people say and do things, but what they say and do has consequences for the rights we bear, the debts we owe, and indeed the marriages we conclude. Because that is the case, because language is public, an obligation does not come down to personal sentiment. If that was the case we could change our obligations at whim and we cannot. The whole notion of an obligation is that it is not your personal sentiment but an outside force that imposes it on you. If it were different the notion would be meaningless and the notion is not meaningless. The binding is indeed there for 'all to see' at least for two people to see and maybe more. An obligation always has an outward component. Of course you could impose one on yourself, but that you could change at whim.

Here are two sentences:

1. You ought do this
2. Do this

The first appears to be a truth-apt proposition, whereas the second isn’t. But beyond this appearance I cannot make sense of a meaningful difference between them. The use of the term “ought” seems to do nothing more than make a command seem like a truth-apt proposition. It’s make-believe a la fictionalism. — Michael

Perhaps this has been cleared up earlier. As a caveat I have to say that what both propositions actually means, depends on context. They might come down to the same thing, for instance when a police officer utters the sentence, but they might also not. the different is that the first proposition appeals to an outside authority or process that has caused you to you being ought to do a certain something. The second proposition appeals to no such authority. It has al sorts of ramifications, the most important being that propsition 1 may be questioned and countered: "Why ought I to do it?, on what authority, for whom?"
The second proposition does not allow that.

As in, "If I don't build the house on time then some authority will fine me."

This is true if in the terms of the contract. But this does not prima facie entail "I ought build the house" (or "I ought pay the fine"). — Michael

You are fined because you disregarded an obligation and that is call for punishment. The punishment is the fine for breach of contract. It is not a sum of money you can or cannot pay. There is a moral dimension to it, which you disregard. Ultimately this moral obligation depends on the social rule that we should keep our promises, or in Latin, Pacta sunt servanda.

I think obligation is something people feel sometimes. "He didn't want to go to the party, but he felt obligated.". Or it could be something that people in the area believe. "Most Americans believed he was obliged to resign.". It's just describing how people feel or attitudes they have. — frank

There are of course multiple senses in which we use the word obliged. One indeed often feel obliged to do x. But consider the difference between these two sentences: "He felt obliged to go to the party" and "he was obliged to go to the party". They are not the same sentences, but in your account of obligation they are. That is because you think an obligation is subjective. The obligation though has an objective side to it. We are bound to certain acts and that bind we call an obligation. They arise out of certain procedures, being you signing a contract, or a legislator promulgating a law.

I've offered my own understanding of obligations; they are commands treated as if they were truth-apt propositions, but as commands are not truth-apt propositions obligations are a fiction, and barely even sensible. — Michael

Obligations are not the same as commands and the difference lies in the legitimacy of the procedure by which they are issued. A command makes no appeal to legitimate procedure whereas an obligation does. This discussion actually mirrors the Hart Austin debate on whence the law derives its legitimacy from. To Austin law was merely the command of the sovereign. Hart contested that and won, at least that is the current view of jurisprudence. https://thecolumnofcurae.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/h-l-a-hart-his-criticism-on-austins-theory/

1. You will love this movie
2. I promise you that you will love this movie — Michael

Nothing, just a figure of speech. I promise you ... here means: "I am sure you will..." You can though never promise someone else will like something. You would also never see someone asking for indemnification. With a marriage proposal it might be different though there may well be laws guarding against asking for indemnification in such cases. However, for instance if you promise to sell me X and I contract with Y that I will deliver him X after I have gotten it from you and you do not deliver, I might well ask for indemnification, under circumstances, even Y might.

What does "if someone is drowning then you have a duty to jump into the water and save their life" mean?

Does it just mean "if someone is drowning then jump into the water and save their life" but phrased as if it were a truth-apt proposition? — Michael

No, it means there is some rule that states that one should save drowning people. This rule may either be customary or codified somewhere. In the second case I might also be appealing to such a rule, but I might also be appealing to just my whim. In case one, we can try to find out if such a duty is there or not, by looking at law or custom.

I’m not really sure how your comments are related to mine? I am simply asking what “obligation” means, and how the sincere use of the verb “promise” entails an obligation. — Michael

Like in many cases of speech acts it depends on context. It may well be just a figure of speech, it may also put you under a pretty heavy legal obligation. Obligations are such are simply burdens imposed on you by way of legitimate procedure, are because you bound yourself to a certain course of action or because a legitimate outside force did so, such as the organs of a recognized state, or recognized custom.

It's like when Margaret Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society." If you really don't understand what she was saying, that's your choice. Most of us understand it perfectly. — frank

The question is, was she right? Of course I understand what she was saying. I also understand what it does when saying that. It was a way to get rid of social policy. I think that is always. Metaphysics, the question what is really real, is idle speculation. What we need to know is, what does ascribing 'reality' or 'existence' to a certain something do? The question is not 'does a promise exist'.

Sure. Oaths, covenants, verbal contracts, and promises are ideas that come to us as parts of a religious heritage. — frank

That seems a sociological claim, and to me a rather dubious one. Aren't covenants, verbal contracts and promises not just very handy devices by way of which we structure our relations towards one another? We do not need God to make them handy.

I think promises are for societies where people lie all the time. If you make an oath, you're signaling that you're telling the truth for a change. Otherwise, there's no difference between giving a promise and just doing as Jesus advised, "let your yes mean yes:" — frank

Welcome to current society. Lying is actually pretty common, "Does my ass look fat in that dress, no of course not honey", or "I will be at your brothers party on Saturday" When push comes to shove it is raining... Promising is a way to make the other reflect on his/her yes or no, it lends emphasis and indeed brings forth obligations, in more or less strong degrees of enforceability. That is also why parents ask their children "do you promise to be good?" . They know what a promise is before they had any religious education.

For us, all the divine trappings have fallen away. There's nothing but people talking, people behaving in a certain way. — frank

I would leave the 'nothing but' out, but for the rest I agree with you. Though stating that institutions are products of social action is something else than stating that therefore they do not exist. Thatcher's quote is often used as an example of methodological individualism. That position is not unproblematic. The 'I' that does things is also shaped by the institutions in which it exists. I am myself much more partial to Anthony Giddens' structuration theory.

People don't usually talk about whether promises exist somehow, but if we had to make sense of that, we'd say the proposition involved in the promise exists as an abstract object. — frank

No, they do not and probably for good reason. The only reason I can think of why it might be meaningful to discuss the existence of a certain something it to know what it does when we ascribe or take away the quality of existence of that something. If we decide on God not existing, prayer makes little sense. For this reason the existence of God is hotly debated I guess. What one does when one denies existence is to decrease them in importance. That is also what denying the existence of promises does. What holds for promises actually holds for all other concepts. Truth is also never found 'floating around', kindness is not, 'principles of good governance' aren't and so on. Yet all these concepts do things in the world.

it's an element of intellectual life. So yes, they exist. In another sense, they don't. — frank

If that is the conclusion I would think it merits some investigation in what you consider meaningful for existence. What does it matter for the existence of something to be an aspect of intellectual life? My hunch is that it is 'dirt and dunamis' as you put it in an earlier post. What advantage does it have to hold on to a position that cannot make sense of the distinction between rules of evidence and existence?

Perhaps we are indeed running around in circles, but I would like to know what attracts you to such a physicalist position? Materialism is all back in favour, but I am trying to wrap my head around why one would go out of his or her way to absolutize this position and rather deny the existence of anything else or relegate it to 'existing in some sense'. But well, if you see nothing in it feel free to disregard.

If you're not reading my posts, don't talk about htem - particularly using terms like 'trolling' which you are doing with that exact sentence. Tsk tsk. Civil discourse and all. But, in all honestly Tobias - your posts are crap. This has nothing to do with your mental abilities or you as a human. Your posts are crap. I'm allowed to say that. You taking personal offense is something you're going to need to work on. — AmadeusD

Of course you are free to point out that you think my posts are crap. I disagree with that assessment but that is to be expected. What is uncalled for is your incessant stream of arguments ad hominem and your condescending tone. Those are not needed and uncivil. I have every reason to take offense when I am talked to with disrespect. Of course probably in your world there is no such thing as rules of civil discourse as rules altogether lack the quality of existence, but in the real world they are certainly there. So, may I ask you kindly to please leave me be and go away?

↪Tobias You misunderstood me. No offense, but I'm not interested in pointing out how you misunderstood me, only to have you respond with the same misunderstanding. I'll leave it there. — frank

Fair enough. I would like to know where I misunderstood you, because indeed that does happen. But if I do not get to find out, alas. I honestly tried to address the points you made, that is all I can say. Philosophy, in my view, is the examination of one's propositions. In that vein my posts were written. If you find them unhelpful, you are free to disregard them of course.