That's very interesting and I did not know. But in the Netherlands isn't the country's Parliament sovereign? I mean, the law-makers can decide that it's legal in Netherlands to apply e.g. Turkish civil law in those circumstances. Turkey cannot make that decision for the Netherlands. But if the two jurisdictions were operating in the same State, I don't understand where sovereignty would lie. Perhaps that's why it's a modern problem and a democratic problem. If a monarch can say 'OK, Church, you can do whatever you want in these aspects of law', then so be it. But where law-makers are democratically accountable then it looks more complicated. — Cuthbert

Well in our current system the state, whether democratic or otherwise, is considered sovereign in the area of international law. The rules of Private International Law are usually laid down in treaties. Turkey cannot decide it for the Netherlands but Turkey and the Netherlands can engage in a treaty on the matter.

It might be more complicated in a democracy... but I do not see any principle dificulties. There are many different inds of states, some more unitary some very decentralized. If everybody (or a majority)thinks it is a good idea that law making is devolved to lower administrative bodies, also under parliamentary sovereignty they can engage in this form of self restriction.

A pretty big if. I'll opine that the question of principle and practice yields to the question of how much torque the agreement can stand. And whether in principle or practice, I think not a lot. A consideration that comes to mind is the greater interest of the community. If either of B's or C's differing practices harm the community, the community may move to end or modify the practice in question.

Anyway, I think you've made your case. I merely suppose that at the extremes of stress and tension, cooperation breaks down. — tim wood

Sure, that needs empirical work to find out. There is empirical work done in this field by legal anthropologist and legal sociologists. They study such systems and its difficulties and interrelationships. Sometimes actually it may also build trust between communities that have been in conflict. Establishing one legal order may then prove to be very difficult as it may be seen as colonizing or oppressive. So for the time being the communities in conflict might settle their differences by allowing forms of legal pluralism, in order for each community to keep its own identity.

I am sure having citizens living under two separate codes would present difficulties but is there any reason in principle why it is wrong for there to be two (or more) legal codes in effect in one nation state. — usefulidiot

In short my answer to the question would be no, there is no reason in principle why it is wrong for there to be more then one legal code, unless you hold on to the notion of law as the command of some leviathan like sovereign who cannot be limited. A bit of a Hobbesian view. That view is rarely held though nowadays, at least not among sociologist of law. There is though an ongoing debate as to how much law needs to be tied to state institutions in order to be called law. The two separately existing legal orders would both be bound to the state though so that problem is not in view here.

What might a good rule be in case of disagreement on jurisdiction? This would seem to matter. It goes to the question of the OP. Which imo is answered by observing that there cannot be two separate systems, but that one yield to the other, or both to a third. — tim wood

It is a good question. Well consider this: There is a Country A. In country A two ethnic groups live, Group B and group C. Group's B and group C. have a different system of inheritance law. For instance: In group B children may be completely disowned. In group C. the children are protected and cannot be disowned from at least a portion of their inheritance. This is only a simplified example, maybe there are many different regulations in their inheritance law, maybe in their family law at large, and perhaps also in other areas of law, but let's keep it to inheritance. Now, we have two different legal systems. What do we we need to have to make this system coexist? In any case we need rules about who belongs to group B or group C, because that determines the regime of inheritance law. Moreover, we need a court that decides on conflicts arising about the law of being part of group B and C. But for every conflict internal to group B and group C, different courts may be established. Let's call this court that determines whether one belongs to C or to D, court E. Now is that court E more powerful? Not really, it does not deal with matters relating to inheritance law of C or D. It only has competence over determining whether one belongs to group C or D. These courts may be comprised of judges of both group C and D for instance.

You might say, well that is still one legal system because both have to submit to court E. However, notice how court E does not deal with anything substantive. It just decides on procedure. What I do grant you is that both C and D have to agree to settle their disputes over jurisdiction to court E. That is where they are connected. Nonetheless, people in the same state are subjected to different inheritance laws, maybe different family law, property law and what not. We have two different systems of law, not totally unconnected. I am thinking about what it would look like if they would be totally unconnected. That might be possible, but than the state has to devolve de facto law making to these different groups C and D. It is well thinkable still. Then the two systems will have to establish their own rules for what people they have competency. It might well be less stable than the previous system discussed above, but I see no objection in theory.

In any case, also in the system discussed above, we have two different legal systems, coexisting in the same territory. Sure some arrangements need to be made. It does not necessarily lead to civil war, if both agree on the rules of procedure to determine the jurisdiction of the different legal systems.

As to civil - as to any law - the underlying issue is what I can force you to do, whether to pay a fine or a judgment, perform or not perform an action, or send you to jail. And, subject to correction, I cannot see a how a society works if it supports contradictory legal systems. The US an example: where laws contradict, society doesn't work, and remains broken until the issues of law are fixed, requiring legislation, the US Army in a high school, or even a civil war. — tim wood

Well, in the Ottoman Empire different courts existed from different societal denominations. There can be different codes of inheritance law for instance for different ethnic groups. As long as the state guarantees both and there are good rules in case of conflict between choices of jurisdiction there is no problem, as long as it is clear which jurisdictions are chosen. Like I mentioned above, the Netherlands has two different highest courts of law. It works because of the 'una via' principle. When you bring your case through the administrative law courts, you cannot submit it again under civil law. There have been contrary decisions on a similar case now and then, that is interesting, but also that can be dealt by, for instance via the 'lex posterior' rule, a later verdict supercedes and earlier one. I do not know if that is what you mean, but there might be different codes of law for different people, even if there is one supreme court. That court must then be versed in the law of denomination A and denomination B.

And, it is not accurate to say that some Muslims want someone dead. It's called a fatwah, and that's not some Muslims. it is Islam itself. — tim wood

Huh? Last time I checked islam itself had no voice. A Fatwah is a religious verdict. In Turkish society and under Turkish law for instance such verdicts are not recognized. The official stance of the papacy is against anti conception, so do all Catholics have sex without a condom? Moreover there are different branches of Islam. So 'Islam itself' is another silly generalization.

To be sure, nearly as I can tell, Islam itself is evolving, and many evolved, but not so much in many places, or within many authorities — tim wood

I do not even understand what you mean. What do you mean with 'many authorities'? There is no Islam itself just like there is no Catholicism itself or Protestantism itself, let alone 'Christianity itself'.

Reducing this to the behaviors of a few, "some," wackos speaks ill of your cognitive abilities. (If you want to take just this on, I prefer PM; because it's an ugly topic all the way 'round.) — tim wood

Ohh no need for a PM, but rest assured my cognitive abilities are perfectly in order. Indeed this discussion detracts from the topic at hand, but hey, I did not start making ill informed generalizations about swathes of people having little in common but a religious belief.

Are you quite sure they're distinct? Are they civil, criminal, both? I have a tough time believing that while I cannot do something to you because it would be a crime for me to do it, that I can summon my bro.-in-law to do it because it is not a crime for him to do it. — tim wood

Usually civil law arrangements. On criminal law I have less knowledge, because as a branch of public law it is much closer tied to the state. Differences are thinkable though, though probably not on violent crime, also because there is not much controversy about violence being prosecuted. However, some laws concerning blasphemy or libel, insult, for instance may be treated differently, though I do not know myself of any country that does so.
However, criminal law is in comparison to civil law a small branch of law. Most law you are dealing with every day is contracts, tort, family law, tax law etc.

Edit: in criminal law for instance I could see for instance laws against male circumcision being applied differently because of religious grounds. Usually, in a rather unitary country, some exception will be taken up in the article that prohibits assault, but it is in principle thinkable that there are different criminal codes. States will be reluctant to have it, because criminal law is seen as a competence of the state par excellence, but it is by no means unthinkable.

And this snark simply won't do as being hopelessly ignorant of and inadequate for whatever it is you have in mind. E.g., is Salman Rushdie still in hiding? (Ans., I find this online dated 2020: "Rushdie was given police protection, adopted an alias and went into hiding, on and off, for a decade. He still lives with the fatwa, which has never been revoked, but now he lives more openly. He has said this is due to a conscious decision on his part, not because he believes the threat is gone.") — tim wood

Sure, but the fact that some muslims want Salman Rushdie dead is for you an indication that muslims will not do well in a country that has freedom of speech. That is just a silly generalization. There are people who want Pelosi dead because of her ideas, unfortunately. Do you conclude that Republicans will not do well in a country with freedom of speech? Of course not. Many people unfortunately face death threats because of their ideas, from a lot of different corners, far left, Islamic radicalism, extreme right. If we start equating everyone on the left with far left and everyone on the right with far right, than, by your logic we will soon run out of people for whom freedom of speech is acceptable. Protestants are generally against gay marriage, do you think they will not do well in the Netherlands, a country where gay people may officially marry? The snark is unfortunate, but deserved, because you simply made a rather ignorant and offensive remark. Your last post was not and so I will not give a snarky reply, but, I hope, a reasonable one.

By the way many muslim countries actually prohibit membership of extremist religious groups under anti-terrorism laws, because they might well be perceived threats to the order of the state.

Just for example, I don't see Muslims doing well in a society that embraces free speech, for the simple reason that recent history shows that at least some Muslims even think they have a duty to abuse and kill anyone espousing ideas they don't like. — tim wood

Because like, sure, all Muslims are the same you know and there are no countries with a predominantly muslim population but also a secular legal systems and like the muslims that live in Western countries all secretly want to abolish free speech, yeah man, haven't you seen it on Fox new?

Let me write it down in two line so even the less than useful idiots on this forum can gain an modicum of comprehension:

A: no, not every secular society agrees on the same legal principles. Contentious issues like the death penalty and 'good Samaritan' laws attest to that.
B: There are indeed countries that offer distinct legal systems to different segments of the population, it is called legal pluralism.

No appeal to highest authority. Legal disputes can be taken to higher courts. In the case of dual systems, there would be two authorities. each the highest court in its own system. There would be no way of settling disputes between these two authories - unless there is some authority higher than both. Which then re-creates a single system. — Cuthbert

Not necessarily. In the Netherlands there are two different distinct highest courts and there have been different rulings on the same substantive subject though rarely. One just needs to delineate competencies very carefully or allow a choice of legal system upfront, but prohibit 'forum shopping'. It happens in the world of international business quite often that they choose a certain jurisdiction. There is no reason that should not be possible inside country.

It is not all that difficult. I have been married under Turkish law. When we moved to the Netherlands, it remained a marriage according to Turkish private law. If we would have been divorced in the Netherlands it might well be that the Dutch court would need to settle the matter by Turkish private law. That could have well have been important for the division of assets and so on. It was not an issue, but could have been. Actually there is a whole area of law called private international law that regulates such matter. Still, we might end up demanding national courts to practice the laws of another nation. I would find that a lot more complicated than allowing for a different code of laws in another area of the country or for a certain ethnic group. The hang up over this is actually quite recent. In Europe's past they allowed all inds of different sources of law, local custom, clerical (canonic) law, Roman law etc.

There is no reason they cannot do so. It happens and is known as legal pluralism. It can be found in some countries, countries for instance running a centralized legal system but also accepting the verdicts under customary law of some indigenous communities. I believe the UK ran an experiment with shari'a courts. There is no reason in principle, but for the state wanting to determine the content of the law and extending its centralizing and unificatory force. The fear may be that that communities will start to live separate lives not feeling themselves part of the same nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_pluralism

If a man and a woman were in a fight and the woman was kicking ass, well, in this man's world that would just not be okay. Sure we can all cheer to the call for women's empowerment, but when you get your ass handed to you by a woman, that's too much. Equal perhaps, but not more powerful. — praxis

In my line of work you will not get very far if you do not accept that there are women having more success and wielding much more power than you do yourself ...

There is still much to do everywhere. The Netherlands is quite conservative when it comes to the participation of women. Probably there are no mono-causal explanations. Institutions and cultural values are skewed against the participation of women. Maybe there are also biological differences I do not know. However you see more and more traditionally male professions being entered into by women, like the judiciary. Therefore I think it has much to do with culture expectations and institutional set up.

Though if you look at professional philosophers today, there are more men writing than women. It might be related to the constant arguing and competition, as you point out. — Manuel

Well, and to the uneven division in the higher ranks of academia. Even though women generally perform better, in the Netherlands at least, the majority of profs is male. The work of full profs is most often published and cited, so you will notice more males noted as philosophers than females. It might change though. For instance there are more female judges now in the Netherlands than there are males.

On a serious not, though, it is true that even today (not even mentioning the Western tradition), women tend not to be too interested in these kinds of subjects. Not that most men are either, but proportionally it's still very skewed to males. — Manuel

I do not think women are uninterested in philosophy. When I studied philosophy the balance was more or less 50/50. I taught philosophy courses at some private institution and the balance was 50/50 as well. When I look at the balance of the Philosophy and Law Group I am in at my faculty it has slightly more men than women, but it is nothing like I think the gender balance that is found here on this forum. I think rather that women are more focused. If they do philosophy they will do so at a career level or they take a course instead of the jousting that goes on here. Contrary to say fiction writing, this forum is quite competitive, women might not find that sort of environment worth their while. The pressure on women to spend their free time caring for children or do house work is also (unfairly) higher on women still. So in other words, women just have better things to do.

"Don't Give Up" (6:33) album version — 180 Proof

:up:

This is one of my favorite song. It is a Turkish song. I heard it for the first time when I was reading philosophy in a water pipe cafe in Istanbul. I was reading N's Zarathustra. For me the song fitted the mood perfectly. Of course I could not make out anything of the lyrics at the time, but slowly my Turkish improved and eventually I could. The song recounts a man travelling through mountains. The song is a bit hard to translate, because my Turkish is not great, but also because Turkish is a totally different kind of language, so some of the meanings and metaphors lose some force. For instance Turkish is very precise in the use of different tenses for verbs and in using adjectives to words conveying a slightly different meaning. Anyway, you may find the lyrics below.

The song struck me as well because the lyrics have a double meaning. It is first and foremost a love song and recounts the longing for a loved one. The band is very political, critical and leftist. It is also about political struggle and the sacrifices made for it. One might even conjecture a religious / philosophical interpretation. In our travel to come to knowledge and discover the world we will eventually fall, but be taken up in the cycle of life. The ambivalence is strengthened because Turkish is a gender neutral language.



When this city is overcome by solitude
A bird dies silently in its sleep
you wish to get up and leave it all
the dark streets blind, deaf and mute

Hey, you who sets out wrapped in love
You should know these roads wind through mountains.
And if you fall before you reach her (him / it),
the echo of your longing will still ring tomorrow

Hey you who sets out wrapped in love
You should know, these roads wind through mountains.
And if you fall before you reach her,
the echo of your longing will still ring tomorrow

At dawn and new day breaks
your heart is sharpened by longing
A small stream springs from you
The river will grow
and flowers will bloom at your banks

At dawn and new day breaks
your heart is sharpened by longing
A small stream springs from you
The river will grow
and flowers will bloom at your banks

Hey you who sets out wrapped in love
You should know, these roads wind through mountains.
And if you fall before you reach her,
the echo of your longing will still ring tomorrow



Bu kente yanlızlık çöktüğü zaman
uykusunda bir kuş ölür ecelsiz
alıpta başını gitmek istersin karanlık
sokaklar kör sağır dilsiz

Ey sevda kuşanıp yolara düşen
Bilesin bu yollar dağlar dolanır
Yare ulaşmadan düşersen eyer
Yarin hasretinin yankısı kalır

Ey sevda kuşanıp yolara düşen
Bilesin bu yollar dağlar dolanır
Yare ulaşmadan düşersen eyer
Yarin hasretinin yankısı kalır

Gecenin ucunda gün aralanır
Yar sevdası ile yürek bilenir
Sızılı bir ırmak uğurlar seni
Su olup akarsın
Kır çiceklenir

Gecenin ucunda gün aralanır
Yar sevdası ile yürek bilenir
Sızılı bir ırmak uğurlar seni
Su olup akarsın
Kır çiceklenir

Ey sevda kuşanıp yolara düşen
Bilesin bu yollar dağlar dolanır
Yare ulaşmadan düşersen eyer
Yarin hasretinin yankısı kalır

However is this far, and what "logic is being suspended". If we are parts of a whole, why can't Schopenhauer view be "logical"? — KantDane21

I have not read 'the knot of the world', so I can only go on what you describe here and what I otherwise know from Schopenhauer and his relationship to German Idealism / Kant. I guess Schopenhauer would not be convinced that knowing subject and willing subject are part of a whole. It is the knowing subject that knows itself as willing subject as well, but there is no transcendental subject that perceives itself as willing subject and as knowing subject, as aspects of itself. That transcendental subject is equal to the knowing subject for Schopenhauer, because such knowing is what the knowing subject does.

If knowing subject and willing subject are not parts of a whole than their identity becomes inexplicable. Like you, I am not so convinced they are not parts of a whole, but I guess we need to get more out of Schopenhauer to know why he thinks this is not convincing.

I just thought the debate would interest you, that is the only reason I mentioned you. It is rather pointless to discuss with someone who misconstrues your arguments seemingly on purpose.

Yes, it is toying with the ambivalence of 'is'... 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication. I always sucked at formal logic ;)

Thanks InPizotl, makes a lot of sense. It depends on the Ayes Bees and Seas being defined as substances or properties, right. Thanks!

Why not A? Seas and Bees are equivalent at least in their aspect of all seas being bees. If all seas are Bees and if some ayes are bees as well than some ayes must also be seas since they are equivalent to bees.

What's your point? What is the inconsistency or claim you find in Kant that disqualifies him as an ethicist? What mistake has he made? That is, that can be presented in something less than 29 pages of tying complicated knots. He des not tell people what to do; he tells them what they ought to do and why within the limits of his arguments. And how often have I read some citation that claims to undermine or throw over Kant, only to find the writer very likely has not even read his Kant, or not understood him on the points in question, or the one citing has in some way failed. — tim wood

I think we are talking past each other. I am not finding inconsistency in Kant and would never be so bold and so foolish as to disqualify him as an ethicist. I do not think your beef is with me actually. I am not a Kantian, but I greatly admire him and his ethical system and think that the main thrust of it, at least what I consider the main thrust, 'think for yourself, not for others and respect them as autonomous and free agents' is nothing short of brilliant.

Having a thought is a violation of someone else's autonomy? — Tzeentch

No, your decision not to answr is. Not answering is not a thought it is an act. You are intentionally misreading me.

Well, I am interested in your opinion. If I wanted to know Kant's, I'd read Kant. — Tzeentch

Kant's opinion is relevant in a thread about Kant.

Apparently Kant views himself as the all-benevolent person who ought to go about assigning people their moral duties. What do you think of this? I think it is profoundly silly. — Tzeentch

No, you do actually, because you apparently you think that ethics is independent from the expectations of others, dependent on the social good in the case of lying, but independent of the social good in case of violence... apparently there is some Tzeentch who determines the nature of ethics, like I pointed out in the earlier thread.

Kant thought we could rationally understand our duties or at least the grounds from which they sprang. He called that 'the moral law within'. It is not Kant that tells you, it is reason, at least according to Kant.

That last thread was not about lying. It was about violence. We may have discussed Kant's ideas of lying, but only insofar as it was relevant to violence. — Tzeentch

So in case of violence we have a context independent ethical ethical system and in case of lying we do not. Thank you, much more consistent now.

Other people's expectations do not change the nature of things, — Tzeentch

Well, that rather depend on the ' thing' under discussion doesn't it? When you grab someone's hand and start to pump it up and down it is helpful when the other person expects this behavior and understands it as a greeting. That is by no means self evident though, but a product of social expectations.

I don't see how they're all that different for the person who walks past. — Tzeentch

the situation is different because in the situation you have been asked a question you have ignored someone whereas in the situation you have not been asked a question you have not ignored someone. Indeed also ignoring or not ignoring are socially determined behaviors / situations. However I see now that the mere existence of social world has been so far a mystery to you.

Should I go about having expectations and desires towards other people, and then derive all sorts of moral rights to have those things reciprocated? Or is this the moment we need to start appointing people with opinions on "what is reasonable", and we are back in the mud? — Tzeentch

I am not saying the father has a moral right to your answer, you determine whether you answer or not. The only point I am making is that not answering is an act as well and so does not absolve you from the dilemma of whether you have to tell the truth or not. You are just trying to wiggle out of that question by shifting the subject. I am not arguing for any rights on someone whether it is a right not to be ignored or a right to hear the truth.

I don't credit lawmakers with having a particularly solid grasp on the nature of things, and morality by extention. — Tzeentch

Well, this assertion merely proves your utter disregard for decades of learning. Your phrase ' the nature of things' is unintelligible. I can therefore not comment on whether they have a grasp on 'the nature of things' as I fail to understand what that may mean. I do know your phrase displays unjustified contempt.

Cite? The ideas of one right answer is naive. In some cases there might well be one right answer, but certainly not always. — tim wood

Here is an article on the matter. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30317932.pdf However, I easily concede there might be different ways to view it.

The question of a theoretical right answer is not that naive, it may well be necessary. The problem of a categorical imperative is that it is well categorical, applicable in all cases. The question is if there is theoretically speaking a best solution. It might be we cannot find it, but I think in a Kantian structure there has to be one. Actually also in law this claim is sometimes made as per Ronald Dworkin's discussion of 'Judge Hercules'.

But unbeknownst to you, the victim went out your back door and went home, and you have in effect killed him! Kant argues that with your lie, you make yourself part of the problem, and thus take on a share of responsibility and liability that the truth or silence would not have imposed. — tim wood

Yes, I know that is Kant's answer to the problem.

Kant is concerned with the pure formulations of duty, understanding that between the rule and its application could be considerable slip twixt cup and lip.

As to what to do in the case of conflict, in his Metaphysics of Morals he is explicit. If CIs conflict, then the better rules and the lesser falls away - there being then no conflict. From Mww again,
The law holds only for the maxims, not for definite actions.
— Mww
Wisdom that "might be engraven on a Queen Anne's farthing.., which necessitates a vast volume of commentaries to expound it" (Melville). — tim wood

Yes.... but is this contrary to what I said, or just an addition / clarification? I believe Kant himself refused to accept conflicts of duties always claiming there is one right answer.

That's not a violation of someone's autonomy. Whether one decides to answer or not isn't a matter of someone else's autonomy, but of one's own! — Tzeentch

Yes but you decide by assuming he does not want to have the answer. That is the violation of autonomy not your not answering per se.

And that duty is one you have taken upon yourself, or do you also impose it on others? — Tzeentch

It is imposed on others via the categorical imperative (at least according to Kant).

I am not a Kantian at all. — Tzeentch

Ok. I belief you like to decide the moral order solely for yourself and do whatever suits you. That is fine.

They're two entirely different discussions. — Tzeentch

Well either ethics is context dependent and then it matters that there are different discussions, or it is not and then it really does not matter what the case at hand is. In the other thread you answered it was not, lying was always wrong.

One is not entitled to my response, my time, attention or even basic politeness, just because they asked a question. What gives one the right to impose any of these things? — Tzeentch

I am not saying anyone is entitled to your response, I am saying you responding or not are both acts. Whether you like it or not we live in a world with others and with social expectations.

Further, inaction is not an act. Not giving a response is not an action - it is inaction, and thereby fundamentally different. — Tzeentch

I gave you an argument, namely that the situation is different when you walk past someone who asked you a question or whether you walked past someone without him asking a question. You may counter that by some assertion on your part but it is hardly convincing now is it?
Just because you say so something is such and such does not make it such and such. Luckily you are not a lawyer because you would have a damn hard time wrapping your head around crimes of omission.

The relative texts in Kant’s corpus make clear to lie is always an affront to a good will, from which is derived to lie is never a moral practical objective. From that, it is just as clear the perfect duty is always more compelling. — Mww

I would think that follows as well yes.

I would rather be responsible for a guy’s possible torment that may not even manifest seriously, or that torment which subsides over time, than to jeopardize my moral character by lying in order to not cause it. — Mww

That I would say is also correct Kantian reasoning.

The water pipe or 'nargile', is my tipple of choice. I have a nice one at home which I use with Turkish double apple tobacco or with Syrian lemon mint. It is very mild compared to the stuff mentioned here. Those, for me, I found not to be conducive for thinking, but the water pipe aids in concentration and when reading I tend to stop every paragraph to note new ideas down. Purely the large quantities of nicotine I guess for an otherwise non-smoker, but it works.

:lol: In the old days, I left home early in the morning and did my own thing all day and then went home when people began turning their lights on. I don't think it is safe to give our children that much freedom today. We didn't lock the doors to our house or car and we lived in a Los Angeles suburb. :lol: If you can find the movie "Blast From the Past" it makes an interesting statement about social change where I grew up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhMQOb0tEmI More has changed than our understanding of science. We no longer have the culture that we and that is why I write! — Athena

Nahh, I think you are more scared than you used to be. That is because there were the dangers that you know, now you do not know the dangers anymore. Crime rates go up or down but the trend is downward.

This does not mean I am stuck in the past because I believe if we do not self-destruct, we are transitioning into a New Age, that is so different from the past, people in the New Age will not be able to relate to our primitive past. Exploiting each other and nature as we have done up to this point will be unthinkable. Dressing people in uni-forms and having them march into the enemy's weapons will be unthinkable, but dropping bombs on the enemy may still occur? I like what Alisdair Mcintyre says in the speech because he mentions what a culture and time in history has to do with our concept of morals. It is also a political matter. We now have reactionary politics based more on our feelings than our intellect. When making decisions we look inward to see how we "feel" about this or that, not evaluate how it fits with our principles. What are principles? We have a culture that is so unsure of everything we are powerless to do anything but follow orders to get what we want. This is not a good stopping place for the future. — Athena

Well I hope for this new age, but how do we get there? I reappraisal of the classics, yeah might be... Perhaps indeed also a reevaluation of our relationship to our world. However, things look very dire. They look dire according to me because of the accelerating economic inequality between people. The working class has been dismantled and share holder capitalism triumphed and profit is of no benefit anymore to the people who created it. The result is 'immiseration', an alienated class of people who's only option is to love from day to day and enjoy what they can without thinking ahead. They will not read the classics or care for the environment through no fault of their own, but just because they are busy making a living. This will increase polarization in society because they will defend what little they have from the masses that have even less. Therefore it will have to start somewhere and the answer might well be one you do not like, more interference in the economic lives of the citizens.

Okay, I have to read that! He published a few books and I am not sure which one is the most important to my effort. I am too tired to figure it out now. — Athena

The Worker: Dominion and Form. He also wrote about his experiences in war but that is not of interest to you. I do think though he will describe and affirm exactly what you will dislike. However, that is why he needs to be read, or at least why I think you should read him. He thinks Prussian knowledge of duty is great and that we will become technological 'workers', but it will be up to us to give technology soul. It is a book way ahead of its time I think.

Thanks @Mww, it touches on the very thorny subject of the conflict of duties in Kant. What if an imperfect duty, say taking care of the moral well being of others conflicts with the perfect duty not to lie, as in Amalac's case. What to do?

Isn't the crux of the dilemma that telling the truth would cause the man significant emotional harm, and thus it was not a question he truly wanted answered?

If that's not the case, then what are we even here for? If the man wants to know the painful truth, then it certainly isn't bad to tell it to him, and lying would be even more clearly wrong. — Tzeentch

The problem is we never know. We can only do our duty, but not think for someone else. If you have perfect knowledge that he did not want this question answered he might be right. However, you never have, so all we can do is accept the other person as an autonomous individual who chooses his own path in life. He chose to ask that question. If you decide he really does not want it answered, you violate his autonomy.

What duty? — Tzeentch

The imperfect duty to help.

Well, if one no longer takes the position that telling the truth causing significant harm, disproportionate to the harm of telling a lie, then there is no dilemma. — Tzeentch

You are using an utilitarian calculus, Kant would not. In another thread you argued that context does not matter. You are an inconsistent Kantian.

But even then, I don't see how non-interference makes one the owner of the problem, as though whoever asks questions may lay some moral claim on the bystander's attention. — Tzeentch

Because you were asked a question. Not answering a question is an act too. You make it seem like it is not an act. That is a wrong assumption. If I ask you in the street "may I ask you a question?" and you are basically ignoring me, you are being rude, or you did not hear it, or you were in a hurry, but at least I am going to think about why you plainly ignored me. You indeed do not owe me an answer, but me asking the question drew you and me into a kind of relationship. However when I pass you by on the street and you say npthing at all I will not think anything of it.

No, he decided that fate for himself, however tragic that may be. — Tzeentch

No, he asked the question, so he wanted to know. At least presuming people act rationally. Which we have to, we assume people are rational, that is what accords them human dignity at least according to Kant. You deliberately did not help him and thereby violated an imperfect duty.

There's no reason the cause of his worries and emotions should be projected on some innocent bystander. — Tzeentch

Nor is there if you just told the man the truth. He asked for it, you gave it, what can be wrong. Instead you chose to make yourself the owner of the problem by not telling him.

The claim was made (or at least the impression was given) that answering the man truthfully or not answering the question was bad.

I disagreed. — Tzeentch

I disagree too. I took your position (ore or less) for the sake of this debate. We disagree on not answering the question. I would say that is bad. You let your own desire not to hurt the man's feelings control you. that is a sign of bad faith... bad faith so it is...

Not to answer is to choose non-interference, and such is one's right. — Tzeentch

Not answering is veiled interference. There is no such thing as a non-answer to a question. The situation when you do not give an answer while a question was asked, is not the same as the situation that there was no question asked to begin with. The man will suffer his anxiety until the bitter end and will not even know, whereas he did ask.... You have decided he should suffer that fate. He decided to ask a question.

One doesn't owe the man any answers, respect or one's attention. The fact that the man is dying doesn't create a special situation where that would be the case. — Tzeentch

I do not have to answer, but I was asked a question. Why would I not answer? Not answering a question is ignoring. Why would ignoring someone be a good act?

@Tzeentch Not answering means ignoring and also means not taking the dying father seriously as an autonomous agent. I would consider that just as wrong, but an easy cop out. But actually, I am on our side in this debate... I think your post is directed mostly @Amalac

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts on a few things, particularly around the ethics and moral discussion.

Ex; 1 - There are two men. One man has committed not only a series of heinous homicides in terms of breaking the law, but has also effectively taken multiple lives of numerous moral agents without remorse or justification. The second man, has no such background. Instead, he goes to work, comes home, attends to his community with a series of good deeds, and feeds his family. The only important commonalities are both need a new heart, and there is only one.

Did the above woman, removing all reactionary emotions and logical inconsistency, make an interesting point to consider?

1. Would it then be in our best interest to choose the latter man, over the former to receive a new heart? And if not, if the decision is simply to be random, and the former man receives the heart, and the man has a complex and patterned negative behavior history and recidivism, where as the former has the same, but positive, and the decision turns out to be more harmful than the previous selection, to whom does this speak to?

Should these then be elements be taken into account, when selecting recipients of organ transplants? — Cobra

I go with unenlightened's answer and Caldwell's. Medics are not judges. We cannot know the future and we also cannot judge the merit of one's life. At least that is not the reasoning doctors should employ. They are in the business of curing people not in the business of judging whether someone lived rightly or wrongly. The sentiments of the woman in your example are understandable, but should not become a basis of choosing what kind of medical action to perform.

The question actually does become salient in times of the pandemic. Many hosipitals, states and countres have drawn up criteria of what needs to be done when there are more patients than ventilator machines for instance. Determining moral worth is universally rejected I think, but other criteria such as age or perhaps whether the patient has dependents on them are not so clear cut. There is a good question in there, but I would be loathe to weigh the values of a human life.

What I don't understand is why this mere logical possibility in some hypothetical world has any relevance to how we should act in the actual world, where that almost certainly won't happen in any near future. The criterion of “universalization” as a way to distinguish good acts from bad ones just seems arbitrary to me.

Why is it that if an action can be universalized without contradiction, then the action is morally/ethically justified, and morally/ethically reprehensible otherwise? Without circular reasoning, I mean. — Amalac

Well, I think it is because of Kant's reverence for the principle of autonomy. You only have recourse to your good will, you do not control anybody elses. If you are dependent on others for the good of your action, then you lose that autonomy. That is why he has qualms with consequentialism and the utilitarian calculus as a basis for ethics.

I think his question is not. How should we act? But "can we know how we should act?" His answer is yes, because we can in any case deduce what kinds of acts are problematic. If we are dependent on others to determine the good of our action we have forfeited autonomy. It is not that an action if perse justified if we can universalize it, in any case it does not violate our duties. Both drinking red wine and drinking coca cola or drinking Pepsi can be universalized, however, that does not mean one should drink either. Just that you do not violate any duties by drinking them.

I prefer that over making him terrified and sad/depressed. — Amalac

You might. But you are not the basis for ethics. What you are doing is thinking for someone else and robbing him of his autonomy. He does not as the question for nothing. What you are doing is claiming a status you do not have, namely as someone who can choose to define who is a worthy legislator in the knngdom of ends. According to Kant what you do is wrong and we can see why: if everyone would do the same thing, the whole institution of questioning would collapse. So you can only do it by claiming some sort of eception for yourself.

Why does he have to learn about his fate in the first place? If he doesn't, he won't be terrified by his imminent death. It is more likely that he will suffer less if he doesn't learn about his fate, so I think it's better to lie to him. — Amalac

Because he asked and because of his dignity as a questioning rational human being. If he had not wanted to know it, he should not have asked.

And yes, I know deontologists don't care about the probable effects of actions, but I still find that unreasonable. They themselves use probabilistic criterions all the time: when they get out of their house, they don't give serious consideration to the idea that it might be better to stay home because a meteor might fall on their head if they get out, or that suddenly it'll start to rain heavily leading to them being struck by lightning when they get out — although they can't be certain those things won't happen — because such events are very unlikely to happen. And the same is true for almost all of their beliefs in daily life. — Amalac

I have no idea what bearing this has on anything. Of course you can strategically plan your actions... We have no control over the weather, but we can know how we need to act in the field of ethics. A deontologist uses exactly this example against consequentialism. You cannot be certain so you are basically determining good and bad behavior on contingent outcomes over which you have no control. Ethics depends on your will and whether that will is good or not.

Yet when it comes to ethical considerations about the effects of each action, they suddenly seem to stop caring about the probable consequences of each action, and just care about following the categorical imperative, only because we can't be completely certain about the consequences of each of our actions, and because some elaborate and unlikely scenarios in which the actions lead to bad consequences are possible (not always though, sometimes they do mention possibilities which aren't that unlikely, and should be taken into account). — Amalac

You keep thinking it is some sort of empirical criterion, it is not. It is not because of the consequences we need to apply the categorical imperative, it is because it tells you right from wrong. It does that by showing you what would happen if everyone acted according to the maxim you set yourself. If that cannot be universalized it follows that you can only live by that maxim by claiming some sort of special privilege for yourself.

I'm not trying to refute Kantian ethics, I just think its core criterion is arbitrary. Nor do I think that an act is good because most people think it is (“ad populum”), the examples where intended to make people question whether a criterion that leads them to act in that way is really the best one at their disposal, in accordance with their basic moral intuitions. — Amalac

The first I tend to agree with, that is why I am not a Kantian, but the second is a misreading of Kant. He does not claim an action is good because most people think it is. If everyone is unreasonable everyone will choose a wrong criterion. The right criterion is determined by reason alone, not by people abiding or not abiding by it.

the examples where intended to make people question whether a criterion that leads them to act in that way is really the best one at their disposal, in accordance with their basic moral intuitions. — Amalac

Your examples are actually arguments ad populum, not Kant's.

Supposing it became common knowledge (which is not likely, so long as there are deontologists suggesting a different course of action) I think the suffering they would feel after finding out about their son's dead outweighs the suffering caused by the anxiety they may feel for not being able to get an answer to that question. — Amalac

Yes, you are a utilitarian. So far so good, but Kant is not. I am also not. Refuting Kant's position on the Cat imp. will not save your own ethical system. You would need to engage with Kant's objections to utilitarianism if you want that.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (Germanerl Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress in Education for Democracy, August, 1939) — Athena

Our form of government is a republic. Only very small populations can have direct democracy and there was a time in Athens when every male citizen who came of age had to attend the governing meetings, so everyone understood the reasoning of the law and had an opportunity to change that reasoning, as a meeting of the gods debating until having a consensus. — Athena

Ok, clear enough. But then, what Athens had was no democracy as we understand it. People loving outside the city walls were not citizens, women were not citizens, slaves were not citizens, foreigners were not citizens. Even Aristotle (and I mean Aristotle, not a footnotes in the history of philosophy!) could not vote in Athenian democracy. He was a foreigner, a 'metoik', excluded from many rights the full Athenian citizens had.

I believe it is important we understand democracy as a culture not the form of government. Government is only one aspect of democracy. We retain the power of the people by electing representatives that is a republic. However, again when we are not transmitting that culture through education, we can not manifest democracy any more than a church will manifest Christianity if it puts the Bible in a back corner and teaches math and science instead of Bible stories. — Athena

Ok, so your problem is with a certain cultural identity, an ideal form. It is not a form we have or a form that might have manifested itself fully at any one time, but a certain cultural ideal that you refer to as 'democracy'. I understand it and I am not criticizing it just seeing if we can get our terms straight and aligned. This cultural ideal is built around equality, but also around a set of cultural values. The heroes of old, maybe the battles of old fought by different liberation movements, the stories of old. One peculiar puzzle you face is that the stories of old also relegated the narratives of others to a seat of lesser importance. In the US for instance the stories of the native Americans or stores of people of color. Every American hero you names is a 'dead white man' in popular parlance. I am not the most woke on this forum, but sensitivity to this aspect of 'democracy' is needed. You present it as a rather unproblematic situation that existed in the USA of old, but like Athenian democracy it was made possible by the exclusion of a lot of 'others'. That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past.

Why do you think learning about the world is important? I am not saying it is not important but I am struggling with a question of identity and unity. To destroy our sense of identity and cultural agreements could have negative consequences. Wow, could this be a philosophical subject. I somewhat envy Native Americans who have strong tribal identities as this is so different from the "Lonely Crowd" in which most of us live. And that concern of the lonely crowd is the opposite of my concern in the paragraph above, that we lose individual power and the strong leaders we need. :roll: — Athena

Of course the question of identity is a philosophical subject, very much so. It featured and still features prominently in debates on political philosophy between the more liberal inclined thinkers and the so called 'communitarians'. You might really like the work of the communitarian thinker Alisdair Mcintyre. I think the phrase, 'the lonely crowd' is very well put. I think that is the situation we are in.

I don't think what I have said is comprehensible but it is confused. I am afraid this confusion is behind the intense political and social conflict we have now. I think nations can be as in great need of psychoanalysis and individuals. The US is having an identity crisis. — Athena

It is confused because it is a difficult subject in which it is very hard to stay consistent. It is a problem because articulating a new vision for the future is hard. It is also hard to interpret the past, but it is interesting enough. This is our attempt at psychoanlysis. What happened to the spirit of the US, what happened to the spirit of Europe? We are a 'lonely crowd', lonely because we have no common element. However I do not think that American heroes will do it in todays world. We will need a common goal or common threat.

Education for technology has always been education for slaves. Our technology has advanced but it is still for slaves and their society is run by policies they do not make. This mentality wants a Hitler or a Trump, who will make life good for them. They have archy confused with liberty and favor brute force over reason. No matter how technologically smart they may be, that is not equal to wisdom. Raymond seems to be arguing what is wrong with this. — Athena

Raymond seems to be arguing from a romantic environmentalist point of view. I am arguing for a new metaphysics which might well come from an environmentalist perspective, but we cannot let go of tehcnology and I also disagree we are slaves now more then we were in the past. In fact, I will put it more bluntly. The Prussian model has made this kind of criticism possible, because of its system of mass education. the high level of education it provided to many people have spawned the same critical thinkers that now question it. There would never have been a Heidegger, Foucault, Ulrich Beck, to find new paths without this type of education.

I think we are indeed in an existential crisis, but simply going back to the old ways will not do it. In any case a lot of people would die were we to die if we did that. The question is what wisdom is when confronted with such a conundrum. The criticism is made possible by the mass mobilization for science we have undertaken in the past decades.

am so glad you see the expansion of military order throughout the whole of society. You may have been taught to think about the means of achieving goals. But I don't think this comes with education in the US. There are factions that are trying to get us there and the US is on the brink of another civil war!
We are processing a complete change of consciousness and this is a very turbulent process! People are flipping out and gunning down everyone in sight. The storming of our Capitol Building was an organized action and I don't know how anyone can believe Trump did not intentionally inspire it. From what I have heard through television, Germany has made awesome progress and I speak of the US that has not made that progress and is in intense trouble right now. We are at the point where Hitler took over, not where Germany is today.

And I am not sure about everything I have said, but I am trying to think through want you said and my more immediate information gathering that has been hammering away at the industrial model of education. I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

I was not a happy kid at school and I saw quite keenly what it did. It mobilizes each and every citizen for war and this condition of total mobilization does not leave you. It continues in higher education, in the jobs you undertake, in the time tables you are being regimented into, in the meticulous moment of testing, examination, from university days to child rearing advice... We have a society of mass mobility but also mass mobilization in which you are called to whichever front you are needed, a mercenary plying his trade, going to wherever you are ordered. That is our condition. You would liek to read Ernst Junger I think. Ernst Junger is an old German conservative who saw in the first world war the forge in which a new age was being crafted, the era of the 'worker', but the worker regimented like the soldier... It is a wonderful text eerie in its precociousness of society's self understanding...

I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

Thanks :sparkle: :flower:

Yep. I like the "little pepper-corn" analogy. I've mentioned before that the number of new research papers in math alone arriving at Cornell's ArXiv.org surpasses 250 per day. — jgill

Yes. I am (we are) a soldier in the mobile army that is science today. You can only stand in awe of the immense brainpower that goes into the 250 articles in one university alone. Most of these articles will not be worth the paper they are printed on, no matter how brilliant they are. They will remain still born. But somehow, somewhere someone may be inspired by one and writes her own article and that might inspire someone and he or she goes on to write something truly great. That is how science works these days, a massive human wave attack.

That is exactly what we do in academia nowadays... we are not trained to be revolutionaries. Part of me resents it, but another part of me sees wisdom in this slow but meticulous grinding of our lens...

And what's wrong with “depending on their actions” in that sense? Again, is it likely that everybody, or at least a majority of people will suddenly all start lying any time soon? No, that's probably never going to happen. So why should that hypothetical world in which everybody lies matter in the least? I'm not trying to justify liars, I just don't think lying always or very often is wrong for the reasons Kant thinks it is. — Amalac

Well for Kant what is wrong with depending on the action of others is that you relinquish your autonomy. Kant's concern is not for some actual world where acts have actual consequences. It is purely cerebral, logical. Whether it is likely or not is hypothetical, but he is after something categorical, a rule of reason. The hypothetical world does not matter as an actual possible world, but as a purely logical possibility. His question is not first and foremost, what is ethical, but first: can we know what is ethical. He introduces the categorical imperative in the Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. It is therefore not so much ethical, as it is metaphysical, concerned with what we can know.

I don't think it follows that if you reject Kant's criterion for living what he considers an ethical live, then you can do anything you want. It just means you move on to some consequentialist criterion for determining how you should act. — Amalac

No of course not, but he rejects consequentialism. I do not know if his cure is not worse than the poison. I do think that his admonition to think for yourself has merit. I am an ethical eclectic and I treat ethical maxims as 'principles' in the sense law treats legal principles, guiding general rules that guide decision making, but which are stacked against other principles.

And why should the person provide general rules for others, why can't he just have a personal and private ethic? Even if he did provide general rules about how he thinks everybody ought to act, it's not likely that others will change the way they act by what some random person tells them, the reality is that most people simply won't give a damn about it, unless it's someone close to them, someone famous or someone influential. — Amalac

Well, his point is trying to find out if we can know, by the light of reason alone, whether there is indeed a rule for ethics that always holds up. You can decide for yourself how to act. That is his point. I do my duty you do yours... or not. But we can discern, he thinks, what our duties are.

Also Kant concludes — if I'm not mistaken — that lying is wrong no matter what the circumstances are. And I think that's just wrong, as is shown in the example I gave of a man on his death bed asking if his son is ok, when the other person knows that their son is dead. — Amalac

I actually do not endorse Kant's decontextualized ethical stance and used your objection in my discussion with @Tzeentch here: here I do think your example is wrong, at least from a Kantian standpoint. If it becomes common knowledge that is such a situation we would lie to the dying father, then dying fathers cannot ask that question anymore because he will never know if he gets an honest answer. So we 'sacrifice' the feelings of the dying father in order to keep our framework, that we answer truthfully, intact. So other dying relatives may ask that question and not face the perennial anxiety of not knowing.

Here's another example: suppose someone's son is terminally ill, and the doctors tell the man that his son will almost certainly die soon. A few days later he goes to visit his son in the hospital, and the boy fearfully asks him if he's going to die. Would the father be doing something wrong or unethical if he lied to his son, telling him that he is ok and that he will recover soon, so that he wasn't terrified and would suffer less? I don't think so. — Amalac

Yes he would commit a wrong. He thinks for the boy, who asked an honest question and would expect an honest answer. He takes away the boy's dignity as a rationally thinking being. His duty is to be there for the boy in his dying moments as an acceptance of that fate. Something the boy cannot accept if he does not know it is coming.

Once, walking in the field, I saw a weary fox, on the verge of total exhaustion, but still struggling to keep running. A few minutes later I saw the hunters. They asked me if I had seen the fox and I said yes. They asked me where it had gone and I lied to them. I don't think I would have been a better person if I had told them the truth.

Well for me, the principle is not to lie. There is also a principle telling you to aid the one in need. I would stack up these principles and weigh which one weighs heavier in this particular case, as many points of view as can be considered. It would not be Kant's answer though. That does not make Kantian ethics inconsistent. The point is you cannot refute Kant's idealist ethics with consequntialism or by appealing to majority opinion. Kant's system is a rationalist one whereas Russel's here is an empirical one.

I am sorry I am only a domestic woman. Pay careful attention here and look for the gray that is both black or white. And know your questions are greatly expanding my own understanding of everything! You are giving me an enlightening moment of the kind that brings me to this forum. I do have a college education and I listen to college lectures daily. But I have never transitioned into the kind of educated person of which you speak. To me, your questions about having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD, is a language from Mars. Despite all my education, and self-education, I am still a domestic woman. And I will think I have died and gone to heaven if you are willing to explore this with me. — Athena

Well, exploring it we are already doing. I can help, at least by being someone you can throw ideas at and also by being critical. That is the academic way. I can sometimes be tough, but never out of dislike or disdain but because questioning your own and other's ideas sharply though fairly helps and makes them better. And well. I mt a prof once, she got her PhD after twenty years of being a house wife. She has her rough English accent, but she was an expert on Derrida and sharp as a whip... It is rare but it happens.

quote="Athena;641963"]Now, what do you think education should teach us? You said "schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society." I said women were in control of education. Yes, the education experts tended to men. All the positions of "authority" would have been held by men, except in the one-room schools, where an 18-year-old woman was expected to give children of all ages an education, as though this were no different from any other child care. I am speaking of my grandmother's generation of teachers. Most grade school teachers were women. All education was based on liberal education. We teach children math to teach them how to think. We teach them the American mythology that is in history books. Education is about literacy and reading the classics, not about having a high-tech job. Am I conveying a feeling about education that is helpful in answering your questions?[/quote]

Well ideally, in my point of view, education makes us happier persons who understand and can cope with the world around them. That would also mean that education tends to shift with how the world around them looks. American heroes are great but children today grow up in an international world, heck, we are even conversing here in an international forum. I only recently learned about American heroes and to be honest in my view they are quaint people... that is because I have not imbibed 'being an American' from an early age. But to be able, to hold their own in an international world the kids should know how relative those stories are and develop a keen interest in European, Chinese, South american and African heroes. They do not need to know the mytology but they need to learn how to listen, how to communicate. So what education is and should be depends on the times.

Have you seen the movie The Reader". I saw it long ago and my memory is vague, but the gist is a German woman who is illiterate is found guilty of war crimes. She was not guilty but was hiding the fact she could not read. If she had let that be known she would have been found innocent. A man takes interest in her and when she goes to prison, he sends her audio tapes of the classics. You see, she was only following orders and that was being a good Nazi and she had no concept of independent moral judgment and refusing to follow orders. That would have depended on knowing the classics and thinking about right and wrong. — Athena

I haven't unfortunately. It was on my 'watch list' and maybe if I find it I will watch it soon. But anyway, many Nazi's were guilty, men who learned how to read and write. Nazism was one side of German history, it also had wonderful theologians, philosophers, and literary geniuses. What interests me is not the question of good and bad, but under what conditions did one education system replace the next and what were the reasons for it. There are probably no monocausal explanations for it. What were the conditions under which Prussia developed it and what was the reason for its success. To do that one needs to trace very meticulously and also with distance, how these steps took place and what were the turning points. You have the material to do so, but then you need methodology and theory...

Why do we recoil at Nazis following orders? Why have today's prisoners who, in prison, study the classics, become changed, people? Here is a problem with Christianity- it is not Jesus saving anyone but learning good moral judgment, and social rules, good citizenship, and peer support and pressure that makes us good. When we had liberal education based on the classics and being literate, we were fulfilling the promise of the enlightenment. Education for technology does not do that! Now we have a technologically very smart society, without wisdom. — Athena

Too fast. You might well find the Prussian systems stems from enlightenment ideas. The classics themselves say little. There were atrocious wars in the past and heinous crimes, just like there are now. In fact crime cates go down, people are not worse than they were in the past. Not that I am against a classical education, but I am against easy black and white dichotomies.

The Prussian model of government is the Prussian military order applied to citizens. This begins with Prussian generals determining the military action and precisely defining every single task that is necessary to pull this off. Once the plan is complete, the swarm of ants (army) will do exactly as planned, even if every general is killed. Unlike kingdoms, bureaucracies never die. — Athena

Indeed! Actually the same kind of military regimes were enabled everywhere in bureaucracy, in the hospitals, in areas hit by pandemics, in factories and in schools. Michel Foucault write about it brilliantly. But actually, the German military, at least in WW2 was so ruthlessly efficient because they allowed field commanders leeway into how to reach objectives. That you describe is known as Taylorism, or Fordism, the mindless deskilled working on the production line. The current 'mobilization' of citizens is far less crude and more insidious than that. We are led to accepting the goals rather mindlessly, but the means. we are taught to think about them. It is much more efficient than thinking ahead in every eventuality. As actually German lawyers learned. Prussia was also one of the first countries with something like 'science of law'. What I mean is, also 'Prussian education' developed. We are no longer in the 19th century.

That was very inefficient and it was tied to nepotism. :gasp: You might imagine the problems with that. And this is also a social problem, a social problem the English education protected. England strongly supported the division of classes that they had and rejected Germany's education for technology because education for technology tends to be a social leveler. Suddenly with education, the commoners qualify for jobs because they have the training, AND hiring is based on merit. Merit hiring means uncle Joe who is an alcoholic and is lacks the necessary knowledge/training does not get the job, but the job is given to the man with no breeding, but the right training. Education for good citizenship and education for a good Englishman was not so different. As I stated, US education was about good citizenship, not technology and that meant the US was technological behind Germany and not ready for war. But Abraham Lincoln who grew up in the boonies could become president. — Athena

But I reckon social mobility is a good thing. Finally your class id not determine you, finally, you could thrive and develop just like everyone could. Three cheers for Prussian education no?

Unfortunately, Eisenhower realized too late, the modern German model of bureaucracy, and education, leads to dependency on specialized experts. He warned us of that danger, but most Americans think what I am saying is a "conspiracy theory". They do not know enough about bureaucratic organization to see the problem. No matter what system is used, there will be problems. The Prussian model of bureaucracy is far superior to the one the US had. We could not have a national pension plan without that change. However, our past education, liberal or classical education is essential to our liberty and democracy. — Athena

But why is it essential? From these to paragraphs I get the impression that the German model was much more democratic, egalitarian and beneficial to the senior citizens. Specialization, well of course. Pur knowledge has increased immesely. We would not be talking had it not been for specialization and people knowing about communication and technology. I am not saying these things just for the sake of disagreement but to tease out, what 'democracu' means to you. If you ask me, these are all fundamental pillars of a functioning democracy.

You are right about the importance of governmental development, but we might want to keep Tocqueville's 1835 (Democracy in America) warning in mind. We are becoming a despot that is opposed to the democracy we had. Or as Aldous Huxley said. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." — Athena

I agree but to some extent. De Tocquville also stands for a rather elitist conception of democracy. And I am not favouring the rule of mister and misses Average, but to me democracy also means fair opportunities to all.

According to Kant himself they are equivalent. Of course Catch-22 was not written as a refutation of Kant. I interpret it as such. I am a Hegelian and I recognise in Heller's work they same play with contradictions. But anyway, I will really read all the posts, but for now I think what is important is that the three formulations are equivalent for Kant because they allude to the same thing, the moral law within. Just like we have a transcendental unity of apperception which grants us a world, we have a moral law within which makes it possible for us to discern ethical from unethical behavior. "What can we know" remains I think a corner stone for Kant.

@AmalacMaybe, I am silly, it is late anyway, so bare with me... But is Kolakowski not reading Kant is too existentialist of a way? Kant's metaphysical project is about deducing under what conditions knowledge is possible. Does Kantian ethics not take a similar route? The question is, is there a recognizable foundation for ethics? I can of course will all kind of things. I can live by the principle: "T lie through my teeth and I hope everyone speaks the truth". However, one immediately recognizes that if everyone lived by that principle it would not turn out to be a correct description of the world for anyone. What I recognize is that I give myself a 'status aparte' that is dependent on the behavior of others to make sense. That I think Kant would consider building your kingdom on shaky foundations, because you are not acting autonomously, but you become dependent on the actions of others.

One recognizes that such a maxim might be a way to live, but not a way to live ethically. It is the inversion of treating each other as a means to an end. If you hold this maxim you can only become an end in itself if everyone does as you hope they will do. It is also the inversion of being a legislator in the kingdom of ends, because you write a rule 'ad personam', yourself. You are therefore not legislating, i.e. providing general rules. You can do everything you want, but you will recognize it as not ethical. I think that is Kant's point. His claim is we can recognize ethical from unethical behavour, so knowledge of ethics is possible.

This came to mind. From Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," which I loved when I read it 45 years ago but which I'm afraid to read again in case it isn't as good as I remember:

“From now on I'm thinking only of me."

Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."

"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I? — T Clark

I just had to comment on this one. Catch 22 taught me philosophy. Here Yossarian is of course totally right and what he does is exposing a weakness in the Kantian argument, (or maybe the argument of Kantians). Yossarian's point is that ethics is social and not individual. Ethics is also practical and not 'formal'. Catch-22 shows how every attempt at rationality in an irrational situation leads to contradiction. The only character in the novel that understood it is Orr. He embraces the contradiction: Why did he risk his life crashing, because he wanted to live. Why did the Nately's whore hit him over the head? Because he paid her to do it.