I don’t see how these two follow from your or bartricks’ arguments either could you explain?

Being a master logician would mean that you can tell, given premises, whether or not the conclusion is valid, not that you know everything.

Similarly, “knowledge is power” is hand waving. An omniscient person still couldn’t lift an airplane. If omniscience really did lead to omnipotence then "omnipotence" would be obsolete as an attribute of God and wouldn't have been mentioned — khaled

Firstly, being perfectly logical implies that no fallacies are committed. A mind free of fallacies never makes mistakes i.e. the art of gaining knowledge would reach its zenith. That being the case, omnipotence is just around the corner.

Secondly, omniscience implies knowledge of how to produce a desired effect and that's just another way of saying that with omniscience one can become omnipotent.

You don't see the category there? — tim wood

No. Enlighten me.

I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case. — Possibility

Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.

Two points to note:

1. the reason is identical for both (piety)

2. the dress codes are identical

Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former.

Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two. — Possibility

I'm not too sure about Moslem women wearing hijabs and the like as a mark of "...their obedience to man..." There are many Moslem women in the so-called free world and while some choose to adopt Western clothes, many continue to dress in the same old way that Westerners find offensive. Do you mean to imply that [Moslem] women are oppressed in the "free" world as much as they are in other places? Probably not but then that means Moslem women actually prefer the hijab and such over other fashion alternatives.

Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’ — Possibility

:up:

Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust" :chin:

well, I show why reason entails God in the OP- the OP that no one can now find due to the merging. — Bartricks

:rofl: I'll take your word for it. :up:

1. If there are imperatives of Reason, there is a mind who is issuing them. — Bartricks

This premise is shaky. It needs to be proved which you haven't.

Because the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

I recall making a similar argument a long time ago. If one is a master logician, all knowledge would be one's (omniscient), and given that knowledge is power, one would also be all-powerful (omnipotent). What I couldn't do, unfortunately, was establish a necessary connection between logic and ombinevolence except if one approaches the matter from a Kantian perspective.

My question though isn't about the relationship between reason/logic and the omni-attributes (I concur with you on that). My question is how reason implies the existence of god? Reason is a contingent property of minds and before we discuss properties of god's mind, we need to first prove god's existence. Basically, you can go from dog to brown dog but not from brown to brown dog. You've put the cart before the horse.

Therefore, there is a mind whose laws are the laws of Reason — Bartricks

Why can't it be our minds "...whose laws are the laws of Reason"? Why does it have to be God's mind?

What prevents them? Is it the same thing that prevents an Moslem woman from wearing whatever she wants, when she wants to? Or is that something different? — tim wood

Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves? — tim wood

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Ask a Christian nun why she wears what she wears and whether she has any issues with the arrangement and the answers may surprise you. Christian nuns are more than happy to wear chador-like garments for they consider it a religious duty to hide their sexuality. The same logic applies to Moslem women. It takes two to tango.

You are very confused. Nuns are free to wear what they like whenever they like. Even nothing at all. Theirs a choice, their own choice. Moslem women, not their choice. And big trouble if they don't comply.

During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base. And routinely we see news reports of some woman savagely killed for essentially nothing. Whether Islam itself is a rabidly vicious disease of a religion is more than I know. That many practitioners are is a matter of fact. — tim wood

I've never heard of Christian nuns being at liberty to "...wear what they like whenever they like" This is news to me and I'm going to need some reliable sources to believe you.

I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’. — Possibility

I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage.

The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment. — Possibility

The fact is Christians and Moslems both worship the same deity although they have different names for that deity. Given this, it's not surprising at all that a woman's piety in both religions is partly measured by the garments they don (the habit of Christian nuns is virtually a carbon copy of the Moslem chador).

There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression. — Possibility

I daresay many of the sharpest critics of the Moslem stipulation on how women should be attired have ever bothered to get Moslem women's views on the matter. Western media too seems biased - granting airtime only to one side of the story. For all we know the majority of Moslem women could be in favor of the hijab and its variants.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men. — baker

It takes two to tango. Right! :up:

As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens. — Kenosha Kid

You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch.

Speaking from my own experience, be mindful of the certainty and the scope of your argument.

1. Certainty [of a conclusion]: Can range from probably true to certainly true.

If your conclusion's certainty is of the former kind, the odds of it being true and ergo defensible is greater.

It's very difficult to defend conclusions that one believes/claims is certainly true.

2. Scope [of a conclusion]: Can range from some to most to all. Avoid conclusions about all members of a category - they're going to be difficult to argue for and also hard to defend.

If you want to make an argument that's likely to be true and easy to defend talk in terms of probably true and some.

An example [scope]

1. A lot of good Americans exist

2. If a lot of good Americans exist, all some American are good

Ergo,

3. All Some Americans are good

Remember: the fallacy of hasty generalization

Another example [certainty]

1. John volunteers to work in organizations that help the destitute

2. If John volunteers to work in organizations that help the destitute, it's absolutely certain likely that John's a good man

Hence,

3. It's absolutely certain likely that John's a good man.

Let's say that a correlates with c.
b also correlates with c, but to an even greater extent.
when b is controlled for, a no longer correlates with c.
when a is controlled for, b still correlates with c.

The error: someone says "a causes c". — Hallucinogen

For example: "a man's looks (b) are a strong factor in attracting a woman (c)".
"personality (a) also attracts women".
>> turns out what people label as "personality" correlates strongly with a man's looks.
The error: "personality attracts women". — Hallucinogen

A causes B IFF
1. There's a correlation between A and B (check)
2. B doesn't cause B [to rule out reverse causation]
3. There's no C that causes both A and B [to rule out third party causation]
4. The correlation between A and B isn't a coincidence

In the example you gave of what women are attracted to, a man's looks causes both a "good" personality and women to be attracted i.e. this is a case of third party causation and is a well-recognized pitfall in causal reasoning.

One often-cited example is the apocryphal study that "proved" ice cream sales "caused" shark attacks. The ice cream sales correlated well with shark attacks of course. However, the real cause was the summer heat which made people buy more ice cream and also increased both the volume and frequency of swimming (in the oceans and seas).

If you control for the high temperatures of summer (control for a man's looks) the correlation between ice cream sales (personality) and shark attacks (attractive to women) disappear. The summer thermometer readings (a man's looks) correlate with both ice cream sales (personality) and shark attacks (attractive to women). Simply put, to infer that ice cream sales (personality) causes shark attacks (attractive to women) is to fail to identify the real cause viz. the summer heat (a man's looks).

This fallacy goes by the name the third cause fallacy aka ignoring a common cause fallacy.

that's question begging. You've just stipulated that the whole point of logic is to 'prove necessary truths'. I am pointing out the redundancy of the word 'necessary'.

You ask why should you accept my views - well, if they're true that gives you reason to accept them, no? Why do they have to be necessary truths?

I mean, everyone accepts there are tons and tons of contingent truths - do you alone disbelieve them all? — Bartricks

You made a claim but I don't see an argument to back up that claim and if you had one, it would like like this:

1.Blah blah blah (premises)
So,
2. There are no necessary truths (conclusion)

2 has to follow necessarily from 1 to make your case i.e. given the premises, the conclusion must be a necessary truth. In other words, either you're making a baseless claim (begging the question) or you're contradicting yourself.

For what you say to be of any significance it must be true i.e. your claim must be a necessary truth.

The whole point of logical argumentation is to prove necessary truths. Either you're arguing for the position that there are no necessary truth or you're not. If the former then you're contradicting yourself; if the latter, why should we accept your views?

Drunk people lose consciousness all the time, but their body remains active and operates by itself. Another great example of the body being active and operating by itself without consciousness is sleep walking. — elucid

This I find interesting. It's as if people under the influence of a drug/alcohol or are sleep walking are real instances of p-zombies (the human "robots" you described in your OP). After all, their consciousness is reduced and some might even go so far as to suggest that it's absent even while their bodies go on doing thing - laughing, sipping more spirit, dancing, and, of course walking.

However, a couple of things that need to be mentioned:

1. Consciousness comes in two flavors: one is awareness of one's environment and two is self-awareness. In the case of being under the influence of alcohol/drugs, self-awareness is affected but not the other kind of awareness (of the environment). So, strictly speaking, people who've had too much to drink or are drugged aren't unconscious; it's just that a certain component of consciousness (self-awareness) is missing. I suppose we could say that people in such states will fail the mirror test but will cry out in pain if punched in the face.

2. On the matter of sleep walking, from the little that I know of somnambulism, the brain is inactive or if active only at the level of someone who's sleeping normally. In other words, consciousness is absent in sleep walkers. However, there is a difference between a sleep walker and a human robot as you've defined it and it can be discerned from the complexity of behavior; it goes without saying that sleep walkers' act in ways that appear strange, zombie-like and there are other typical symptoms that help diagnose this condition. What this means is that the absence of consciousness or semi-consciousness in those who experience somnambulism is easily noticeable.

Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence. — Kenosha Kid

"Fashion is not the opposite of oppression". I'm not claiming that it is but oppression if it's institutionalized can have a profound effect on fashion and I suppose the opposite is also true if one takes into account how strongly women feel about fashion.

"Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material" is another one of those mind tricks women fall for. They pay as much for a full-length gown as they do for a mini-skirt with less than half the material. What on earth are they [women] paying for? Vitamin D from more exposed skin? :chin:

What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items?

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns? Some posters have taken the trouble to list the reasons for the particular way a nun's habit is designed - covering the body from head to toe. Nowhere in that list does it say that it's got to do with a woman's sexuality, specifically that a nun's habit was/is designed to conceal it. Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.

Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.

Not a suggestion, but as you note, a strong-seeming fact. I refer you back to a Times Magazine cover of a few years ago of a clearly attractive young Afghani girl/women. If memory serves, she had gone to school. Do you remember that photo of that atrocity?

As to the habits of nuns, there might have been a time when you wore a boy scout uniform and were glad to wear it. Imagine being forced to wear it, under threat of severe penalty if you did not. And Ciceronianus notes the whys of habits v. the whys of burkas. Not really a discussion here, at least on the clothes, I think. — tim wood

Why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in bikinis and miniskirts? What's up with that? Surely, concerns for modesty and keeping their sexuality hidden are key to this prohibition or our taking umbrage if and when nuns do dress like that. Basically, a Christian nun's habit is, despite what Ciceronianus said, about a woman's sensuality. Christian nuns are held in high esteem for their devotion to god and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh i.e. modesty plays a huge role in their moral lives. So, shouldn't a Moslem women who wears a burqa/hijab/chador/niqab be viewed in the same light? As women who are devoted to a moral life, just like a Christian nun?

This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.

And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.

Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or oppressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.

Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.

The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.


The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology. — baker

It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.

Really? Imho that is a lie. Their lie (Moslems) not your lie. They dress like that because both their faith and Moslem men are f**ked up. I'd appreciate learning a kinder, gentler reality, but I am persuaded there isn't one — tim wood

In what sense are "...both their faith and Moslem men..." f**ked up? Are you suggesting that Islam breeds thoroughgoing male chauvinists who engage in the oppression of women? Does Islamic doctrine produce the right conditions for male domination? Many think that's the case; the internet is chockablock with detractors of Islam especially on the matter of how women are treated in that religion and from what I gather they've done their homework.

The questions then are:

1. Does a Christian nun's habit represent a similar misogynistic tendency in Christianity?

If no,

2. Why? The point of covering up a woman from head to toe in a loose garment seems to be a denial or rejection of their sexuality and it's a well-known fact that Christianity too has major issues with sex, vows of celibacy figures prominently as conditions for becoming a priest or nun. To make the long story short, a Christian nun's habit is consistent with Christian views on sex with respect to religion.

If yes,

3. Why is it tolerated and not the hijab, the niqab, the burka, the chador?

The difference is that the objection comes from those who object to their faith and their belief in the word of god, and perceive their outward show of confidence as a threat. — Possibility

You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah.

You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed?? — baker

That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. Objectifying women i.e. treating them as objects and property manifests in two forms: at one end, women must keep their sensuality under wraps and at the other end, they must display it to the hilt. I feel bad for women now but they should be happy, at some level, that they are part of a paradox. What shall I call this paradox? The Bikini-Burqa paradox of the objectification of women. That sounds like a good name for a paradox.

The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.

Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.

In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities. — Kenosha Kid

Can you have a look at my reply to baker above?

It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. — Ciceronianus the White

:up: Thanks for the reply. Very informative but I can't help notice how a nun's habit fits like a glove with Christianity's views on sex [modesty] (see here.

One is only worn by a voluntary subset of religious practitioners, the other is sometimes mandated for all women. Choice is the difference — Pfhorrest

Let's say that Muslim women don't have a choice in the matter and those who chose to be Christian nuns did so of their own free will and the habit was part and parcel of the vows nuns make. A difference alright and I admit it's a heck of big difference.

What I find intriguing is that a Christian nun's habit is remarkably similar to the Muslim chador and the reason for adopting such attire in both cases is identical - piety. If we're willing to allow one (in public places), there simply is no reason (I can think of) to ban the other. Both, after all, are in deference to the divine, are expressions of faith.

Of course there's is a difference between a nun and a laywoman. In the Christendom, nuns are ordained into an order, are part of the clergy and have consecrated their lives to religion. In the case of Islam, laywomen wear the chador, not just the clerics.

However, the crux of the matter (Muslim women's attire and the Christian nuns' habit) can be teased out by asking two questions:

1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?

The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]

2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?

The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.]

If so, Muslim women too should be allowed to wear the chador (publicly) because their reasons for wearing it are exactly the same as those of Christian nuns' who have to dress in a strikingly similar fashion and we're totally OK with Christian nuns.

Who hasn't? — baker

So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How?

One of the two groups, Christian nuns and Muslim women, has been, well, brainwashed. Perhaps both.

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression.

Would you say that in the process of giving up the bad habit, you always had control over your intentions and your intentions were exactly what you wanted them to be?

If you ever relapsed, then clearly you didn't have control over your intentions. If the only thing that stopped you from acting on the bad habit was some external circumstance, then clearly you didn't have control over your intentions. — baker

I'm a chain smoker (thank you) and my intention is to kick the habit. I've lost count of how many times I've wanted to quit but...alas...I couldn't. I had, in some sense, good intentions, it's just that I lacked what I think people call will power or perhaps it's a case of physical dependence. Whatever the case may be, my intentions can be different from my actions. That's the essence of intensionalism.

It's a dilemma if our aim is to judge, condemn, and punish others (or ourselves).

For all practical intents and purposes, the primary use of a moral theory seems to be precisely to judge, condemn, and punish others (or ourselves). Have you ever seen a moral theory be used for some other purpose? — baker

I think your reasoning is domino-effect like, slippery-slope-ish. We can stop at any point in the chain: judge -> condemn -> punish. Anyway, the idea is to find a reasonable basis for deciding [judging] the moral status of people, their actions, and it looks like we have no better choice than to pin our hopes on intentions relative to consequences i.e. intensionalism is makes more sense than consequentialism.

The only problem is that we have no way of finding out what a person's intentions are/were. Intensionalism looks good on paper but it's, as of the moment, impractical. Would people even want it to be implementable though. Anyone willing to be moderated by thought police?

What do you mean by that?

Have you ever tried to give up a bad habit? Would you say that in the process of doing so, you always had control over your intentions and your intentions were exactly what you wanted them to be? — baker

You wanted to give up the bad habit. So, you're good as per intensionalism.

Thank you very much for the link. Very informative but...I still feel there's something off about considering rhythmic/cyclical behavior "remarkable" or that it is "inexplicable". As you said, if I catch your drift, living organisms have evolved to maximize their chances of survival and I suspect this would require them to be in sync with natural oscillations that have an effect on their food supply. Thus, I presume, over many generations those organisms who behaviors were synchronized with natural cycles would survive and end up in a lab somewhere. There's the explanation for the "inexplicable" and it isn't "remarkable" any more.

Coming to the matter of time, rhythm/cycles/oscillations are not time. They can be used to measure time and hence the term biological "clock" I guess but this, in no way, implies that organisms, other than humans of course, have a temporal sense the likes a spatial sense. In other words, though their behavior is suggestive, the matter is not as cut-and-dried as some of us think.

Our bodies perform the most amazingly intricate things every moment without our awareness. I don’t think that oysters opening and closing in time with the tides even when isolated from them is a consequence of any awareness on their part. I don’t think oysters are aware in any sense but in the metaphorical sense that characterises organic life generally, but it’s nothing like sentient awareness in the higher animals. — Wayfarer

The OP seems to be amazed, erroneously so, by what he assumes/infers is some kind of temporal awareness on the part of living organisms. He mentions sleep-wake cycles and is frankly awestruck by how the body manages to keep time fairly precisely.

If the OP is under the impression that living organisms have an innate understanding of or a sense of time, fae is mistaken or, at the very least, is unjustified to come to that conclusion. Some processes are naturally rhythmic or cyclical, like the earth's rotation for instance but anyone who asserts that the earth has a sense of time would be wrong. What say you?

The downside of intensionalism is that intention is private and cannot be reliably known by external observers.

A person can always say "I meant no harm" after they had done something that had bad consequences. Then what?


I think that intensionalism has the best prospect of being true as a moral theory, but it is also useless because of its extremely limited application (it's, at best, applicable when a person reflects on their own actions in private, and to a limited extent in interpersonal relationships in which there is trust). — baker

Yeah, that's a problem. So, it's a dilemma then. We have control over our intentions but we don't have access to a person's mind and what people say their intentions are could be out and out lies. We have no control over the consequences of our actions but they're conveniently observable. Is this some kind of a prank God, if fae exists, is playing on us?

Because intentions are aimed at at consequences, and so the problem repeats itself: how do we judge an intention, if the intended consequence gets lost in an indefinite causal chain? — Echarmion

There seems to be practical difficulties with intensionalism - intentions aren't observable and the intentions made public could be lies. That's a bummer because it erects an insurmountable obstacle on the matter of moral judgments.

In addition, intentions are consequence-oriented i.e. we intend to cause good/bad effects (consequences) depending on our moral character. We couldn't talk of intentions without including consequences for the former relies on the latter for its meaning; moral intentions can't exist independent of consequences they wish to bring about. Nevertheless, focusing only on consequences, which consequentialism is all about, ignores a critical phase in [moral] actions viz. the actor's intentions.

There are multiple ways in which things could go wrong between intentions behind actions and the consequences of those actions. Sometimes, the consequences can be the exact opposite of what was intended. It's in this gap between intentions and consequences that intensionalism finds a cozy spot to call home.

But isn't consequentialism focused on intended consequences. — simeonz

Correct. Intention and consequences are two sides of the same coin. We can't separate the two in a way that would make it possible to deal with them independent of each other. However, coming at this issue from an attitude that recommends choosing the lesser of two evils, intensionalism seems a better bet than consequentialism for, as I said, we have less control over the consequences of our actions than our intentions and, before I forget to mention, what the consequences are is entirely a matter of where along the causal chain one wants to stop and look.

Viewing rhythmic biological processes like sleep-wake cycles, oyster opening-closing behavior, etc. as awareness of time is a grave mistake in my humble opinion. These processes are cyclical or rhythmic as other posters have commented and that's all there is to it. They can be used as crude clocks, no doubts about that, but their existence doesn't imply that living organisms have an innate awareness of time no more than a mechanical clock's ticks imply that clocks are, somehow, aware of time.

I was married by a judge... I should have asked for a jury. – Groucho Marx — Miguel Hernández

The more the merrier..eh? :smile:

If I invest in the stock market, make a fortune and incidentally support a company that does good deeds, it isn't reasonable to say I have some stake in the goodness of the deeds; and then, I scrimp and save to support Doctors Without Borders, but find I have been hoodwinked by some intermediary and all the money went into some billionaire's pocket, regardless of my money's "deed" I am on morally superior ground.
But this is simply a reasoned point. Does Christianity talk like this? It's somewhat debatable for them, considering how morally ambiguous it has been. Assuming a version of Christianity that isn't bats^^t crazy, I think this reasoning applies. I take Kierkegaard to be the source of wisdom for all things Christian, and I think he would agree. — Constance

Come to think of it, it's a mistake to look at the issue in an "either...or..." way. We could take both - thoughts and deeds - into account when we judge the moral status of people.

Depending on the Christian sect. — baker

Can you break it down for me? How many Christian sects are there and which Christian sects subscribe to which beliefs. You can keep it short and stick to the relevant bits.

You know what else is sinuous? Tapeworms. Eh. — baker

Mimicry at its best!

Not good deeds, good intentions. But then, this goes further: good intentions affirm the good, but what is this? Metaethical questions always haunt in the presuppositions that underlie talk about utility. this makes the whole affair sound preposterous in terms of sound think, for there one is arguing, and at the center of it all is a term that one cannot even begin to fathom. A bit like talking about economics but having no working definition of wealth. — Constance

Indeed, good intentions and not good deeds but Christian morality revolves around deeds, don't they?

Firstly, I find the notion of beauty to be a masculine perception of womanhood. Ancient cultures seem to identify beauty with the female form as is evidenced by the many "goddesses" of beauty.

Secondly, if evolution is true, men who appreciate or are attracted to a woman's curvaceous body should have been selected for and the lineage of men who weren't so inclined would've died out.

Truth tends to be complex, it's hardly ever the straight lines, sharp-cornered polygons we expect and perhaps hope it to be and are more commonly smooth and sinuous i.e. truth is womanish in a manner of speaking. Truth is beautiful, yes, for truth is a woman.

At least as regards ordinary language use, a dream (which is intra-personal), a language (which is interpersonal), and a physical apple (which is objective) can each be real, but in qualitatively different manners. — javra

I suppose we could like at all such experiences, from wet dreams to cold mountain streams, as real in their own way. However, the domains of the mind and physical reality seem not to coincide perfectly. When we have a nightmare of being run over by a vehicle, the fear is as real as being run over by a real vehicle . However you don't get cuts and bruises if it was just a dream. It looks like the mind inhabits a world of its own, quite different from the world of the physical and there are regions of overlap between the two but some experiences are exclusively mental or exclusively physical.

Firstly, the distinction undeserved and non-deserved doesn't make sense. In both cases the individuals concerned don't, by some metric, fail to rightfully experience pleasure or pain. What's the difference then?

Secondly, antinatalism must make its case based on either absolute terms (life is suffering) or the alleged hedonic asymmetry (life has more suffering than happiness). Your argument is a variation of the latter.

You introduce a new variable into the hedonic equation viz. deservedness of pleasure/suffering. Considering the fact that this notion figures prominently in the weltanschauung of the majority, hats off to you. After all, speaking from a religious point of view, the ticket to heaven has to bought with good deeds and the passage to hell has a similar arrangement although the currency in this case is immoral conduct.

It's true that undeserved suffering is the worst kind and also true that undeserved pleasure isn't as enjoyable. Does the world generate more of these kinds of hedonic states than deserved suffering and deserved pleasure? I don't know but...there's always a but...take note of the fact that given our circumstances, the first order of business is to get pleasure and avoid suffering; we can leave the deservedness question for another time...perhaps a couple of thousand years in the future. Before we tear our hair out on the matter of ice cream flavors, there has to be ice cream first.

On a serious note, I think love is, dare I say it, a form of rationalizing [casuistry] and I'm talking about so-called romantic love. When people say they've fallen in love, it actually means they've fallen for one of those fancy tricks the mind pulls off with such frigthening ease viz. fooling itself into thinking that sex was never a consideration. God-level self-deception if you ask me.

Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first. — Miguel Hernández

:rofl: To clarify, those are tears of "joy".

The late Judith Shklar begins by showing how Montaigne and Montesquieu, although there are subtle differences between the two, are of the view that cruelty is universal as a practice, transcending all boundaries that carve people up into different camps whatever these may be based on.

It's probably the case that Shklar herself was neither the first nor the last to discuss cruelty but what I find intriguing is how she focuses not on cruelty itself but on its ranking among evils. That's a fresh point of view on the issue as far as I'm concerned.

Why should cruelty occupy the top slot among evils? or, of more significance, what are the consequences of treating cruelty as summum malum?

If cruelty is the worst form of evil, we must give up the cherished idea that we're better than and must come to terms with the bitter truth that we're, in fact, the worst of the lot. Just as I suspected.

Furthermore, according to Shklar we're in the unenviable position of being torn between private and public life and I'm only guessing here but she thought the latter,as a public figure, puts us in situations that may force us to act with cruelty even though as an individual, as a private person, one may have a touch of reservation behaving that way. From this point on I suggest you fill in the gaps...

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan. — Book273

I'm sorry but if we can "SLOW IT DOWN" it means that there will be less infections, less "collateral damage" :chin:

slightly slower progress — Book273

That's precisely the point! You've got it!

The shit-stain is lying through his teeth. — SophistiCat

Thanks!

So no licking each other, spitting on each other — Book273

That's correct but you say it as if it doesn't make sense to define close physical contact like that. The idea is to avoid every person's kill zone with respect to bodily secretions whether from the mouth or nose.

So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through? — Book273

To that all I can say is you're probably not using masks of the quality recommended for the COVID - 19. Plus the science of how masks protect against microbes is quite complex - there are microscopic physical principles at play that might surprise you. Google it.

We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right — Book273

Non sequitur. Confined spaces will help the virus spread only if there's an infected person sharing that space.

The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do. — Book273

How do you know this? What makes you think that the precautions are ineffective? In other words, how do you know the infection rates would've been the same with our without the lockdowns and social distancing measures that were put in place?

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from. — Book273

Well, the logic is rather simple. What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get?

I was reading one of the replies which you sent to me and I see that you of how we 'can't distinguish between the real and unreal'. Surely, this complex matter can at least be spoken of in some ways by Kant's ideas about objective reality, as well the ideas within physics. Perhaps it is the whole way in which so many different theories have arisen in physics which has put as in a Tower of Babel and , as a result, we have become lost in being able to get any grasp of what is 'reality' at all. — Jack Cummins

Kant supposedly wanted to unify rationalism with empiricism; he took an eclectic approach and was of the opinion that though we perceive the world through our senses, our minds shape sensory perceptions and the final picture of reality is a kinda sorta synthesis of the two. How does this weigh in on the issue of real vs unreal? Well, if one subscribes to some variation of rationalism, ideas, whatever they may be, are real, as real as the apples Kant may have partaken of during one of his meals. If so, everything would be real. :chin:

Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.

Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic? — Book273

According to well-known science educationist Neil deGrasse Tyson, all disaster "movies" begin by people not paying heed to warnings from scientists, epidemiologist, doctors, and the like. I'm not sure how far that's correct but it seems perfectly on point - the situation is as bad because either lockdowns and social distancing were put into motion only after the pandemic had begun or people flouted the rules.

I'm frankly shocked that you think it's "...very hard to prove something that isn't happening..." and by your statement that "....the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us..." Think of the USA, Korea vs other countries. The death toll differences are telling.