What about the necessity for coherence? Any philosophical theory must necessarily jibe with/square with other existing theories, including scientific ones like the 1st law of thermodynamics, ja? If not, anyone could think up any theory, no matter how discordant it is with the current framework of knowledge. — Agent Smith

Yes, of course, coherence is implied in a philosophical system a philosopher builds. Why don't you read Aristotle's substance and form so you could pick up the coherence there too? The parts of the explanation (the theoretical explanation) must logically connect to make a up a whole system of philosophical view -- that's coherence.

Could you explain a bit more about intelligibility? Thanks in advance. — Agent Smith

I just explained to you in my previous post. If a substance is accessible to you, it means you can understand it objectively -- epistemically it makes sense. In Descarte's cogito, he explained the self as intelligible, and through deliberation, one could understand the mind.

Well I'd think science has a big role in the proof/disproof of dualism, it being the apogee of materialism, no? :chin: — Agent Smith

Not in the sense that one is creating a philosophical theory that can't be satisfied with science alone. Remember that a philosophical theory is trying to show reality in a difference sense, not the common sensical, scientific sense.

One question: why use comprehensibility as a yardstick? It doesn't make sense to me. It's as if I were to say calculus is incomprehensible to me (it is) and so, calculus is nonsense! :chin: — Agent Smith

Because if you look at any explanation of dualism -- cartesian, aristotelian, platonian, etc. they have to argue for the intelligibility of the substance they just now introduced. How did they (the philosophers themselves) know that there is such as thing as substantial form? Is it accessible by thinkers other than philosophers? Is it accessible by the scientific community? Is it accessible by the common sense? If it is accessible, then it is intelligible. And vice versa.

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain? — Athena

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power.

To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. — Agent Smith

Your conflating science with philosophical theory. Aristotle's hylomorphs are an example of dualism -- matter and form. The theory accounted for the form to be already in the universe, and not an extra entity. Your total energy objection doesn't apply here and does not invalidate, per se, the theory of dualism.

If you reject dualism, don't use total energy or something like that, but use (1) intelligibility -- is it necessary that we account for another substance like form and how is it to be understood as a compound of existence. Or (2) there is no dualism -- one composition, i.e. materialism could account for the mental processes.

Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. — Cobra

Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022?

What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality? — Alkis Piskas

Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. Ethics and morality are more complex than what the greatest good theory presents. For one thing, whatever it is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people is essentially a consequentialist attitude. So long as we're achieving the end goal of greatest number of people, it's okay to make some people morally dissatisfied. I gave the example of the runaway train to express my objection to this kind of thinking: saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual is morally reprehensible.

We're not locked in to any one moral systems. Adjustments and deliberations should always be included in our moral decisions.

you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind? — Alkis Piskas

I won't object to your calling it rational thinking -- but I also reserve the right to call other moral systems rational. So where does that leave utilitarianism? They're all can be rational thinking.

Whenever you have only one measure to evaluate how moral your system is -- and that measure is the "greatest number of people" --it suppresses other reasoning that doesn't satisfy this one requirement. That's why I call it stunted moral reasoning.

:up: I hope your brother is living a healthy life now. That's great!

This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good to the major number". — Alkis Piskas

Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. The trolley (runaway train) problem is one. I refuse to sacrifice anyone just so a few could live. That's not moral reasoning. And no, ethics is not defined as that. It's Bentham's theory.

Isn't it clear that five deaths are worse than one death? It has nothing to do with weighing one person's life against other's. — T Clark

In this case it does. The cause of the situation is the scarcity of the drug. I wouldn't save a criminal's life. I'd give it to who is more deserving.

In fact, aren't we doing it now? Those who receive a transplant must pass the "good candidate" test for receiving the organ. Meaning, the person must be suited for the transplant.

To clarify, I don't like how the things some people say make me feel and I don't like the way I react to them, so I resolve this problem by making it impossible for me to see what they said. — Athena

Understood.

You probably won't believe me if I say you can train your emotion to be "callous" but benevolent. But it would require you to detach yourself from identifying (self-identity) with what you do -- be it employment or hobby or a membership to a club. In short, you relax your views on things and always think of walking away. (I only hold jobs that I know I could walk away from when shit hits the fan and monkey wrench thrown in for good measure. Life is too short for arts, music, games, and parties).

Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything. — Cobra

They're not put in the same prison for one thing. They're separated by gender/sex. Why is that?

You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man. — Cobra

I don't think this way. Men and women can choose, and they do, what they want in life. It's when society lies about the masculine and feminine qualities that I object to. There are masculine and feminine qualities, and these qualities manifest in ways that sometimes we don't pay attention to.

The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane? — Cobra

I am not insane. And you are caricaturing my position about gender differences. I didn't say that women shouldn't hold jobs traditionally held by men like firefighter, police, or trench digger. I'm saying that a woman could be a trench digger, a drunk, a race car driver while still being feminine. I think that it's you who seem to confuse that delineation in gender means that women are prevented from pursuing what men traditionally pursue.

For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people. — Cobra

I give a flying fuck. Because with masculine and feminine differences, there must be differences in certain decisions between men and women, and one of those decisions is moral and ethical problems. How they act on a particular ethical issue differs. So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? This is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Until men can pass a whole baby through the penile corpus spongiosum, do not talk about dicks and vaginas like they're just decorations on the front end of your body.

Good name, btw -- Cobra.

I'm gonna assume this is your homework. Welcome to the forum.

First, I would agree that number shouldn't be the overriding motivation to act or decide on a particular ethical event. But, there's a bit to explain here about using number as factor in decision. The runaway train moral dilemma (you can google this for the entire story) has an element of sacrificing one person to save multiple people. That train problem is easier for me to decide. My decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going. Many people would think of this as saving one person by killing 5 people. I disagree that this is how we should look at it. But I won't elaborate too much as this is not what you're asking.

Anyway, back to your problem. The numbers game in your scenario is not the same as the runaway train. In your scenario, it's the scarcity of the drug that's controlling the situation. So, in this case, I would not toss a coin, and I would further argue that Taurek is wrong in using number to equalize the situation. Because the issue is scarcity of the drug, I would use the desert factor. If we're going to deny the 5 individuals the pill, does the one individual deserve to have it? Do they have families? Children? Do they have obligations in life that make them irreplaceable, so to speak? So, if the one individual requiring an entire dose is a criminal, a single individual, or a young person with no other obligation, I would seriously think the other five could have the pill. And likewise, I would examine the 5 individuals who only require one fifth dose.

How many people make a democracy possible and does a democracy become impossible when there are too many people? — Athena

Yes, there is such a thing as too big to make democracy work. But, the ancients never thought that any system would last permanently. So democracy shouldn't be the be all end all game. At least not in the sense of forever.

In one forum I have at least 1/2 the active members on my ignore list and I finally stopped being active in the forum because the members argue as badly as bored kids in the back seat of a car. Commonly there is no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. — Athena

Lol. This sounds like news pundits. Honestly, I don't get the "ignore list" -- I click on new posts I'm interested in. And if the posts happened to be nonsense, I just don't react to them. So I don't have an ignore list.

.

↪Agent Smith
I don't have sufficient knowledge to say, but academics who presumably do (men and women both) have asserted that matriarchies were few and far between, if they existed at all. — Bitter Crank

So this evidence of matriarchies being few and far between, doesn't that tell something about the gender differences? Maybe we could argue that if men and women are more similar than different, then aspirations would be more aligned -- such as having higher instances of matriarchy tribes and kingdoms.

Awesome OP!

You're still wrong.

Let me put it this way: Is there a difference between someone who can't mull over available options and someone who can? Which do you think is (more) determined or, conversely, more free? — Agent Smith

This is an incorrect way of looking at it. We have freedom in thinking, but it doesn't mean everyone recognizes it. If someone can't mull over available options, then there's something wrong with him.

Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation. — EugeneW

Wrong.

Males and females have more similarities than differences. People stuck on Christian women are wonderful and men are the be all end all viewpoints being the beginning of human existence will make arguments one sex is more ethical than the other. — Cobra

Why is this always the beginning of an argument for some people?"Males and females have more similarities than differences" -- so therefore, sex assignment and gender roles are nonsense? The similarities do not invalidate the differences. Animals of different species have similarities. But they differ in fundamental ways. Culture tries to artificially invalidate or blur the differences in gender, but if you look at the primitive and prehistoric records, humans just naturally acted based on sexes.

That's a confused post. Determinism is misplaced when talking about freedom in thinking. It's because determinism puts the issue on action, not thinking, or it just ignores that thinking of doing something is not the same as acting on that thought. To determinism, our actions are what we examine. Which is incorrect.

Why I took this up is because if one let's say just looks at income inequality, then you can get draw wrong conclusions about the issue. Because the fact is that income inequality decreases when there is a war or a severe economic depression. That hardly is good for the poorest, who a hit the most. — ssu

I don't think income inequality is the issue here. I'm talking about meeting more than basic needs and not slave away for crappy jobs. There will always be income inequality, but that's not the same as bringing the bottom on higher economic scale so that housing and healthcare are not based on income.

Or perpetual unemployment benefits. — ssu

No, not necessarily unemployment benefits. But universal basic income.

If you desire greater capital, then it is achievable to the degree that you give effort. Partake in more capitalistic endeavors. — chiknsld

I'm not sure what you mean here. But yes, we can have capitalism without the few getting the lion's share. When wages are a matter of allotted budget, and not what the employees are worth, then we have a problem. The board of directors or business owners could always justify that "this is all we could give to wage budget", without thinking of the worth of labor or contribution employees provide.

I've always thought you were a goat. What I didn't know was you're a male also.

Is milking a male goat possible? — EugeneW

Yes, but you have to spend a really long time to milk cause they produce a very minute amount.

If income varies even a bit, there will be low and high income. — ssu

Okay, I meant poverty income -- those just above or below poverty level set forth by the government, depending on inflation and per capita income of a country. If there's basic income for everybody, no one has to do stupid jobs.

I edited it. The dollar sign was a mistake.

Once upon a time, in the land of 1000 solipsists, one of them died. But the 999 left, didn't care. — EugeneW

Jesus you're wrong! If in the land of 1,000 solipsists, one of them died, 1,000 didn't care.

You can't even do math.

It's called optimization of meeting the needs of everybody. Yes, a few individuals might have to forgo buying the $100,000,000 yachts. But it's okay. You can't bring your yacht to your grave.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. There's enough wealth on earth to sustain all people without poverty and starvation.

Yeah. :up:

I agree. :chin:

I'll say no more. — Agent Smith

:yikes: Like, it's you who brought it up. Okay.

I think I broke someone's :sad: — Agent Smith

You broke someone's heart? Were you in a position to do that?

:broken: — Agent Smith

What's this broken heart? Did someone break your heart?

It's naturally permanent, because naturally there always will be those low income. — ssu

No it isn't natural that there are low income (and we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy).
You should read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. This Graeber was advocating basic income for all, so that even low income people don't have to work the stupid jobs.

Time yourself using different philosophers. I used Schopenhauer for this purpose. But try JS Mill, god damn! Archaic language. Descartes -- you should meditate on his meditation to get his point. Aristotle -- he's good to read -- like an ocean wave.

I've noticed that people who talk about "an AI" in this kind of context overestimate the capabilities of computer programs. Calling it "an AI" makes it sound like it's an entity, like a person, a mind. It isn't any of those things. — Daemon

This is correct. Remember Sophia? It was presented in public as an AI that could "think" and interact with you. It can't. The handlers feed it information -- like a song, or answers to questions before the actual encounter. It's very limited. But people think it's the closest we get to an android. But it's really isn't. It's a cringe worthy creation of people.

Yes. I just don't see the point you're making. — EugeneW

Neither do I see your point. So, are we good?

I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief. — Agent Smith

Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence".

Okay. Are we done now?

We agree! Proving god or proving dreams are two different things though. — EugeneW

Okay, so now we're back to the pesky question of difference. In a logical argument, do you agree that god exists and claims that dreams exist are two different logical argument. One does not need it.

And they can't proof that they're alive either? — EugeneW

To me this is a stupid question, no offense. Why would you ask someone a proof if he's alive?

Are you even asking these questions in good faith or you're just bored? I'm responding to your questions in good faith. But it looks like we're going in circles.