1. Everything must have some explanation (PE).
2. Reality in total cannot have an explanation (PU).
3. Therefore, there is no reality in total.
4. If anything exists, then there is the total of all that exists (reality in total).
5. Therefore, nothing exists.

Somehow I must be missing the point... at least none of you gave the answer that is very obvious to me, so probably I am wrong.

The problem as I see it resides in the formulation 'reality in total'. The assumption is apparently that reality is the sum of all things (total).However, indeed, there is no reality in total. Of course we can add all existing things, fine by me, but all those things indeed have an explanation. And so 'the sum of all things' is consistent with premise 1. Premise 2 though targets not 'the sum of all things', but it targets 'reality', the concept we have of a whole in which all existing things ft together, even though we abstract from the actual existence of these things. Reality as such is the most general, but also the most empty concept. I see all kinds of things, but I never see a thing I call 'reality'.

Reality, like being, nothing, becoming, is an abstract concept, a category of thought. Now premise 4 perpetutates the mistake of equalizing 'the sum of all things' with 'reality', indeed if anything exists, the sum of all things exist, but that says nothing about reality because reality is not the sum of all things. It is our conceptualization of 'everything that is the case', but not a sum of things. Because of this confusion the author draws the conclusion 5 but he equates again a sum of things with a mental conceptualization, namely nothing(ness).

The argument can be stated without this mistake as follows:
1. Everything must have some explanation (PE)
2. Reality cannot have an explanation (PU) (Indeed, because an explanation is explains a phenomenon in terms of something else, but reality being the most general concept, we by definition do not have something residing outside of it)
Therefore:
3. Reality is not part of everything

And indeed it is not. Reality being itself an empty totality in which everything else resides, is larger than everything. The paradox arises when one equates realty with 'everything' and the author of the paradox merely proves the futility of doing so.

Of course, everything that is real, must have an explanation. That is true. Reality itself though is neither real nor explainable.

The whole post is quite hermetic I understand, but it can be stated much simpler. Just analyze the phrase 'reality in total'. Is a 'reality in part' thinkable? Does one piece of reality add up together with another piece to come closer to 'reality in total'? The combination of words is gibberish.

I used to think exactly that but I have gradually become less convinced that extinction or even dwindling are anywhere near. — Cuthbert

I agree but what would be the causes for that?

That was 2016 - then Me Too, then Sarah Everard. The expression of fear is getting more confident but I don't see the fear getting any less, because of the 'subterranean norms' and everyday sexism. — Cuthbert

I agree with this too. I do not think there are subterranean norms idealizing sexual violence between strangers. That is generally loathed upon I intuit. However, our society portrays the norm that if you want something you should come and get it, that success is a choice and that if you just want it hard enough success will be there for you. That mentality I consider to be spilling over to the gender relations as well. I just googled around a bit and found this plethora of videos telling us guys how to set up the ideal dating site profile that will get us the match we want. It is sad, everyone trying to be unique in exactly the same way. Authenticity stylized. This kind of commodification of love brings forth the appeal to 'distributive justice'. If love is a matter of goods, why would I have less of a right to them then you?

:up: Elementary Particles was quite good. Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any.

But that's about where the similarities end, since nobody deserves sex like how they deserve money (or the means to afford life requirements) — _db

I think that is the root of the problem. We have come to compare everything to money.

It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no?
I know that's a simplification but a useful start to another necessary discussion, perhaps... — Amity

Yes. I wonder which way round the explanation goes. I mean, do men get the opportunity to be nasty because they have power or do they maintain power on account of being already nasty? Well, both, probably. In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert

Well, it raises a lot of very thorny questions and none of the conclusions seem especially agreeable to either sex. First of all, who teaches the aggressive (rather than regressive) repressive male? Or are males somehow by nature bound to be aggressive and repressive and is it best to keep them under perpetual surveillance? If it is somehow a natural defect in males, is it then far fetched to hypothesize that females have some natural traits that cause them to become more easily attracted to a certain class of men?

Secondly, if it is cultural: where does machismo come from? It is a cultural trait perpetuated in a patriarchal society, but as the advantage men have over women due to superior physical strength (in terms of 'bursts' of strength, not tenacity or fitness in general as women love long than men and if the sport emphasizes durability fmelae bodies tend to outplay men's at some point) dwindles, so too should the advantage in terms of societal power. It would make the authoritarian male a species on the verge of extinction.

There are indications however that it is not very clear cut. Feminist criminologists hypothesized that crime rates of women would come to resemble men's. That has not happened.

My hypthesis is that there is a system of 'subterranean norms' squarely in place that keeps the existing structures of dominance and power alive. Both men and women keep them intact. These norms which are perpetuated in everyday conversation, on television, in movies, on school playground and on university campuses and tell us that having a sexually attractive man or women as a partner is superior to having a bright or witty one. From Lady Chatterly's lover to Material Girl by Madonna and from James Bond Maria Magdalen, the sexual always trumps the intellectual. That is no complaint, just an analysis. You and I, all of us, perpetuate these subterranean norms. 'Officially' though we all argue against them and tell ourselves but especially others we all want a partner that is intelligent, smart and kind.

Also, I want to clarify that declaring a war is different from self-defense. If a country is invading another country, the self-defending country should not be considered as declaring war. — Howard

What you claim is that war out of self defense is just. That is the problem, when is self defense justified and by what means may a country defend itself? the state of affairs in this framework is very clear cut, either there is war or there is peace. However, the problem is that of 'casus belli'. What infringement can trigger your self defense justification?

Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan has written about this: — Olivier5

Thanks for the resource!

Isn't this precisely the problem? They totally internalize the gaming pressure AND the rules saying which kinda girl/boy is popular and hence likeable by all, and which type of girls/boys is NOT popular hence NOT likeable by all. There's such a thing as a 'canon of beauty', everywhere, but they sacralized it. They carve it into the bloody stone that their brain is made of. — Olivier5

Yes I would agree, though I would not blame their brains. I would point to the societal forces feeding them this kind of morality. It is the story of our age.

Another 'theory' is that of Houlebeck in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well. — Olivier5

Too deterministic and neo-liberal for my taste. It would only work when there is some objective criterion for attraction and only on the assumption everyone wants the same thing screw around as much as possible. I think there are deeply felt anxieties around sex but not of the sort, "hey, I want to do only a prince or princess". That to me smacks of rationalization. "yeah, I do not have sex but I have too high standards".

I would look to a sociological explanation. Sexuality, like many other walks of life have become gamified, framed as competition and considered markers of success. The current anxiety around sexuality is not very different from the anxiety around having the best education, the highest grades, the best most earning job etc. The law of competition is a man made law, not a given

Yes, that's the thesis of The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Interesting note. — Olivier5

↪Amity Yes. This view is in contrast with Freud's, who frequently spoke of how repressed sexual energy can be turned into socially acceptable creativity and hard work through 'sublimation'. Reich says: "it can also be turned into hatred". He posited that as an explanation for the rise of fascism in the 1920s. I read the book a long time ago and was left unconvinced that Reich 'nailed' it. — Olivier5

The theme is rather current. We have turned sexuality into a means of oppression and the vice of this oppression gives rise to violence. Even J.J. Martin argue that Game of Thrones was built around this theme. There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. However, that has never been the case. One of the oldest most universal taboos is the prohibition of incest, a law regulating sexuality. If we take both tendencies seriously we have within ourselves the conflicting desire of regulating sexuality and of releasing it.

I think anthropological research could show us how societies cope with these two opposite demand. Does it have something to do with patriarchal structures? Are the 'means of reproduction' somehow the real 'means of poduction in the Marxist sense? Is sexuality how it is practiced among man somehow conjoined to religious ritual, with a similar root as butying one's dead?

Thus, all the question-begging woo-of-the-gaps sophistry called to account (not "trolled") — 180 Proof

Sure. I think the two positions, the metaphysician who fills the gaps and the one that cleans the debris out again, belong together since Plato's dialogues. I consider metaphysics to be part of the human condition. Immediately when we claim that there is something unknowable or illusory, as Parmenides did, we desire to know it. I consider the mind to be dialogical.

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? — Gnomon

Well, I can only speculate about a psychological answer to your question, not per se a metaphysical one. My prof. on psychology of law taught me that when you talk to someone and you ask 'why' three times shortly after each other, you will incur their irritation. The reason for that is that you have reached the level of presuppositions and assumptions which most just accept as 'clear' and for which they cannot give any further account. In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to.

Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn. — _db

That assumes a whole lot of intentionality. I doubt such intentionality is there at all.

Sometimes, in order to commit or threaten violence against someone a perpetrator needs to first be persuaded that the victim deserves it. They are said to have "asked for it", as the saying goes, as if a violent act against another person is a kind of polite concession. The instinct for justice is so strong that the perpetrator cannot live with himself having committed such a wrong. — Cuthbert

Indeed, in criminology this is called rationalization of criminal behavior by the perpetrator

The roots of violence in the psyche of the perpetrator are thereby ignored, all attention now focussing on the victim and what she "must have done" to provoke the response. This is all neatly summed up in the expression 'victim-blaming'. — Cuthbert

What is worrying too is that this gaze tends to become internalized. Even for the person being oppressed by violence it becomes a way to sustain the illusion of control by 'blaming' your own behavior. It gives the victim an illusory restoration of control and influence. The wickedness of (sexual) violence also lays in the feelings of self doubt it provokes in the victim. It renders them powerless and self blame is a psychological mechanism to restore the illusion of control.

Sigh. Tobias this thread is a prime example. — Benkei

I do not follow threads on the Ukraine crisis written here. I go to TheInternationalrelationsforum.com or Theconflictresolutionforum or Themilitaryhardwareforum

It is a wonderful song I think. It also has nice philosophical implications. We are similar in difference and as such similarity in difference is the state of mankind. the song recognizes that. As long as we do not see the other as completely other, alien, destruction might be averted.

That should cover the rest of your comments. And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

I myself do not define children as loving, I said they areby nature loving, explorative, game generating, and otherwise not miserbale. An observation born out by data across multiple studies - that was a broad analysis I sent you - and one that, for the vast majority of children, only differs among those with abusive parents. Which is of course, an ethical violation for all the same reasons. — Garrett Travers

We are not that far off actually. I agree with this, I have no reason not to. Except that abusive parents are the sole cause. I was quite a depressed child with no abusing parents whatsoever. The cause for my depression had other reasons. However although they are by nature not miserable, the nature of their game can make others miserable. However, I agree, by nature they are not depressed. On the other hand what nature is, is still debatable. Children are by nature social as well and the social comes with conflicts, so by nature children would also be conflictual.

About the article, I do remark that the correlations found are very small. I do know a bit about epidemiological research and if I see correlations like these I become suspicious, but hey it is a published article so I will leave that work to the editors.

And Rousseau/ Christian and me are antithetical to one another. I formulate my views on data and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

Not at all, you are grown up and embedded in a cultural framework. You can as little disentangle yourself from it as you can from modern day technology. On the whole though I agree with your points made above and concede I could have misread your statements for normative claims.

Then you would see how such advice doesn't apply to my research-based analysis above. — Garrett Travers

It teaches me you confuse a normative analysis with a factional one, not for the first time. Your research is moreover circular. You define children as loving and when they exhibit behaviour that is not loving than that is somehow learned through emulating others. The descriptions though of positive energy allow for both good and bad behaviour.

What I do grant you is that they seem to be less depressed. But well also depression is not a normative category. The good and the wicked can both be depressed. What I do not grant you is that "they are deeply loving by nature". Or only in the trivial sense that thye do not bite the hand that feeds them. I do think by the way that love the the ontological human condition so if you mean it in that sense you might be right too.

However what I take issue with is that you seem to equate this disposition with friendliness, or goodness. If that is the case than somehow this fall from grace in later years must be explained. It can't be explained by behaviour displayed by others as also the behaviour of these others must be explained. In other words how come these originally loving creatures became corrupt in the first place. The whole story seems to play in to a rather Rousseauean / Christian narrative of the uncorrupt child. Given the small associations I suspect the researchers merely saw what they wanted to see, as you do too.

I teach them them, but thanks anyway.

edit: It is a bit fickly to add pics. I google the image than copy the link than I click on the icon with the mountain and the sun. I add the link which I achieved through right clicking 'copy image link'.

I didn't say they did, I never even implied. Look man, I'm not these mystic chumps on this website, dude. If you're going to engage with me on here, I'm going to need you to read what I say and the research I post. — Garrett Travers

Edit: Pointless.

I advice a course on critical thinking Garrett. It will do you a world of good.

Is this really a conclusion you've drawn...? C'mon man, when have you ever heard of a child killing anyone in joyous laughter? And if you to happen to find me an abberation of such nature, describe to me the details of where the child comes from, and I'll show you who the real killer is. — Garrett Travers

No, the point is that the definitions of PE does not lead to any normative conclusions such at those you draw. Yes they care for the ones that feed them, so do cats.

You understand? — Garrett Travers

I understand a great many things, but thanks for your concern. You must also have noticed that all those associations are extremely small. Graph or no graph. I doubt it would meet the criteria for good epidemiological research.

From the movie Cidade de Deus

My point is not that they are prone to depression or not, but that they are nice. I never saw a friendly child in my life or at least, very few.

In depth commentary would require me to read it in depth and waddle through the statistics, but let's take for granted that the research is conducted properly. Here is the definition: "NE is a temperament trait that refers to a tendency to experience sadness, fear, anger, and reactivity to stress, whereas PE refers to the tendency to experience joy, engagement with the environment, and sensitivity to reward."

So let's say children display PE on birth. It just proves that they are joyful 'engaged with their environment' and sensitive to reward. So yes, they relish in the sight of burning spider under a magnifying glass. It is just proves they are joyful not that they are friendly or deeply loving. That someone kills you laughing does not mean he does not kill you.

Children are happy, exploratory, game-organizing for play, and very deeply loving by nature. I've never known of any exceptions to this. — Garrett Travers

Ohh dear...

If you think there is something to agree or disagree with, then, indeed, I disagree with you... :)

There is. — Changeling

I do not see it. They recorded a large amount of brain activity in areas which are also used when dreaming or remembering. What is there to disagree with?

""If I were to jump to the philosophical realm, I would speculate that if the brain did a flashback, it would probably like to remind you of good things, rather than the bad things," he said."

This is pure speculation, nothing to agree with or disagree with either. It could be, could not be. Philosophically speaking there is no saying what you will remember. The mind does not have a 'will' of its own trying to cheer up the ding person. There is no way of saying. However people have reported near death experiences so yeah, near death experiences are corroborated by brain activity. Again nothing that I can agree or disagree with.

Sam26 Tobias agree? — Changeling

Is there something to agree or disagree with?

First of all, get well soon Pinprick.

The difference in harm in this case is due to whatever trauma was inflicted by being robbed. So the examples aren’t comparable, imo. Maybe say a hacker takes money from your account and makes it seem like it’s legitimate taxation. In this case the harm is equal, because it’s the same amount of money you’re missing, right? — Pinprick

No. The difference is in the legitimacy. The hacker steals your money and robs you.. The tax authorities tax the same amount of money as ordained by the government. The first is illegitimate, the second is because the authorities use it to fund projects for the common good and not to enricht themselves. (Of course if they do the harm is equal, but that only proves my point). What matters is the motive. It is a rebuttal of your "huh, every kind of discrimination is equal!" line. Only the most ardent anarcho capitalists and you apparently do not see the difference.

If the act were “good” then no harm would come from doing it indefinitely. — Pinprick

Hmm, do you take antibiotics when you are ill? And if you do, do you take them indefinitely? You might say 'ahh but antibiotics is not a good thing, but a necessary evil'. I would agree with you. Preferential treatment is not a good thing. but a necessary evil perhaps.

Yeah, criteria that actually makes a difference like education, skill level, competence, etc. — Pinprick

Why would that one 'actually make a difference' and the other one would not? It is all a matter of the goals you wish to attain. 'competence' may well be perspectival, bringing a dfferent perspective to the table may make the institution as a hole more competent.

Maybe the president selects a handful of candidates that are diverse and then the senate narrows it down from there? — Pinprick

Might be already how it informally takes place. I do not know how political appointment of judges actually works. We do not have it here. There might well be such procedures because the POTUS will only select a candidate acceptable to the senate majority.

Being discriminated against doesn’t only harm you if you’re part of a marginalized group. — Pinprick

It harms you more because you already have less options to begin with. That is what being marginalized means. See the point about traffic fines above.

I don’t see how it’s ethical to give an advantage to someone because of their race. Isn’t that how races became disadvantaged in the first place? White people were given advantages because they were white. — Pinprick

No. Races became disadvantaged because some people thought they were superior to others and thought up this whole classification of peoples they subjugated, based on things like skin color, facial and bodily features etc. They did not become disadvantaged because of preferential treatment policies aimed at giving everyone an equal starting position, quite the opposite actually.

a2a (not looking at all the other answers...)

edit, I see this has been provided by Jamalrob but rejected by the poster... well I was never any good at logical puzzles.

It’s equally harmful. I don’t think whoever is being discriminated against cares about the motive. That it harms them is all that matters. — Pinprick

No it is not. Say you are robbed of your money by a gang of thieves. That is harmful. Every year that same sum of money is being taxed by the state. You are losing the same amount of money. Equally harmful? Of course not. So motives matter.

Well, right, but my point is that if this preferential treatment continued indefinitely, it would be the same thing, only the roles would be reversed. Instead of 95% white males we would have 95% black females. — Pinprick

Yes, 'if'. But there is no reason for it to go on idenfinately because the motive is not superiority, but making starting positions equal. When that happens and they are more or less equal, there is no need for preferential treatment anymore. It is only harmful if you smuggle in some extra assumptions.

Equal treatment of others. IOW’s no discrimination based on things like race, sex, religion, socio-economic status, etc. — Pinprick

But on other criteria it is somehow miraculously fine? Equal treatment is a funny thing. Take traffic fines. In principles the fines are equal right? However, say millionaire has to pay a traffic fine of 100 dollars for a traffic violation. For the same traffic violation, a man or lady with two jobs who barely makes end meet has to pay 100 dollars as well. Who is more severely harmed by the apparently 'equal' traffic fines?

Then why wouldn’t the preferential treatment of black females be harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to other races/genders? — Pinprick

Because they are a marginalized group, others aren't, see above.

The categorical imperative is to imagine what would happen if everyone acted in such a way at all times. So I’ll ask you. What would happen if everyone showed preferential treatment to black women all the time? — Pinprick

Well we would probably have a society such as ours but with black women at the helm instead of white man... If we can want this society we can also want that one. Anyway, that is not how Kant works. According to Kantian logic we have to find the root cause first as our maxim. That would likely be can we want a world in which everyone discriminates according to certain categories. And I think a point can be made that we have an imperfect duty not to discriminate and I would agree. However there might be other overriding considerations as imperfect duties are not absolute. I digress however.

Preferring one group over another doesn’t create equal opportunities. — Pinprick

Hoh! Pushing my mug of beer firmly on the table as if I made some kind of point!

Maybe, and I truly hope it does, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. — Pinprick

I also do not. I am not a big fan of preferential treatment and do not know if it works but I see no harm in it in this case and some benefits sometimes. Mind you, not all the time. Policy is very context dependent.

I agree, but the way to change this isn’t to bypass the process by selecting whichever group you prefer. There shouldn’t even be a group you prefer. — Pinprick

I agree race is a bogus concept, but even though race is a bogus concept ,it caused divisions that last well into the present day. We want that changed, but it is as it is. In certain institutions as I have argued before, it is good to have a plethora of perspectives. That might well include black women, but might also include a Muslim, a person from the working class, somebody with autism or ADHD (provided they have the qualifications).

No, it’s that I think all racial discrimination is wrong. That is what leads to “95% white male quotas.” As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick

Yes that is what I mean. You think all racial discrimination is equally wrong, but it isn't. It matter what the motive for discrimination is and what the consequences are.

That is what leads to “95% white male quotas.” As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick

No it doesn't lead to 95% male quotas, not if give preferential treatment to black women. I think you would agree with me no?

As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick

What do you mean by equality? Equal representation? Well if that is the equality you mean we need to step up efforts of preferential treatment for all kinds of groups.

Those seem like two sides of the same coin. It isn’t like white people don’t “justify” their racism. By stating that a particular race is better to appoint to a position, for whatever reason, you imply the other races are inferior. — Pinprick

No of course not. White people justified their racism in the past by stating that other races were inferior. They did not justify it by arguments of equal representation or the need to diversify our perspectives. they could not since they thought their perspective was superior. right or wrong depend on context and argument. No preferential treatment policy makes that argument.

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? — Pinprick

Most certainly.

I guess I’m a bit Kantian at times, and this doesn’t pass the imperative test. — Pinprick

Why not? It cannot be because "discrimination is wrong" because we always ddiscriminate on all kinds of grounds. You choose for instance who you want to hire and what your grounds for it are, who you want to allow in your house and so on. For Kant what matters is the motive. No we cannot want everyone to start favoring a certain group over another in other to attain dominance for your own group. If everyone one would do that we would get a war of all against all. However if the maxim is bringing about a more equal society it can, even by your own lights, because from your post it shows equality is important to you.

We know where this road leads. — Pinprick

That is not a Kantian argument but a slippery slope fallacy.

Repeating the same acts (racial discrimination) that caused this problem in the first place doesn’t sound like a solution. — Pinprick

Maybe not, but think about it and maybe that gut feeling will prove false. And of course it must end somewhere. However do we already have a society where people with darker skin have the same opportunities as people with paler skin? No.

I've always been baffled by this view, as I think it clear that what you're taught, especially in law school, has nothing to do with the practice of law. Perhaps someone who does very well in law school may make a good law professor, or a judge's clerk, or an associate in a large firm who spends time doing research and writing memos and briefs. It may prepare you for that, but more than that? Why would it? — Ciceronianus

Agreed, that is why I used it as an example of arbitrary classifications. When I applied to law firms they asked me to submit a list of grades. I was good at making exams so I became a legal theoretician at uni ;) Though being good at law exams says nothing about being successful at writing a PhD either...

Again, I bow before your expertise in law, and if I’m ever in the market for Dutch legal advice I’ll be sure to let you know. — NOS4A2

Be sure to contact me when you are puzzled about legal theory, that is my field. Your remarks about law are silly in general, not just in the case Dutch law. Your other points are just a repetition of moves.

I completely agree. Biden explicitly stated his nominee will be a black woman, all of which is irrelevant to qualifications. — NOS4A2

why would 'qualifications' whatever they may be, be the sole criterion that is relevant?

Right. And it was wrong that they were excluded. I would also say it was racist, but the dictionary disagrees. — Pinprick

No in this case the dictionary was right because in the past the candidates have been excluded because they were held to be inferior. Men were considered superior to women, whites to blacks and (protestant) Christians to all other religions. It was not just racism, but also sexism and cultural superiority.

I think racial discrimination has to be included here. It is the mechanism through which racist beliefs are put into practice, and the actual actions are what causes harm. — Pinprick

I wonder what you intend to say with this. Maybe you think all discrimination is equal, but it isn't. It makes a difference whether you exclude someone on the basis of deeming that person inferior or whether you desire equal representation, or broaden the scope of perspectives or indeed correct for worse starting positions. Recial discrimination and profiling are real and that means less opportunities for certain people. Preferential treatment may be a way to mitigate against the prevailing cultural biases that hinder the full development of certain classes of people as opposed to others. You might think all discrimination is equal but that is not the case.

As we see in the current example, racist thoughts need not accompany racial discrimination, but that doesn’t make the act any less harmful, disadvantageous, or unfair. — Pinprick

Why would preferential treatment be harmful, disadvantageous or unfair? It depends on the goals you want to reach and the fairness, advantage and desirability of these. Let's face it every job description contains preferential treatment of some sort. For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities.

I see it like this: you've grouped people under superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis, look for the disparities between them, and use the results to position them, one on top of the other, in a hierarchy of superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis. That right there is the methodology that has unleashed racism upon the world. It results in assumptions about people on the basis of their complexion, in injustice, and finally, in racial supremacy and inferiority. — NOS4A2

I haven't grouped people, they are grouped by everyday social practices. There is no scientific basis for me being grouped among the category of Dutch people as well and I have to show a Dutch passport when I want to enter my country nonetheless. I am the first to agree with you that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, but the historical categorization has present day consequences.

Redressing past wrongs and making starting positions qual is not the methodology that caused racism, thinking some races were inferior and some superior did.

We cannot in fact infer how much prejudice, discrimination, hostility, someone has faced by the mere fact of their complexion alone, for the same reason we cannot know what position they occupy in the economy, in ability, in intelligence, and so on. — NOS4A2

Of course we cannot know but we can compare candidates. We cannot know that the best lawyer will be a good supreme court judges but we think the chances are higher than with an inferior lawyer. We cannot know someone with a darker complexion had different experiences in life from a person with a light complexion, but it is likely given that people with darker complexion face discrimination and racially themes abuse more than do people with a pale complexion. Certainty is very rare to obtain, so we go about things in terms of probabilities.

While your ability to train students to give legal advice and draft documents are far superior to mine, I see no reason to abide by your authority in other aspects of law and Justice. — NOS4A2

Sure, why take a lawyer's word for issues having to do with law? Me, I never take a doctors word for things having to do with medicine, imbeciles they are! Car mechanics, what do they know about cars anyway? Physicist about physics, don't even get me started on that one! What they think they bloody know about physics fits into my pinky it does!
You are hilarious sometimes. Just remember that the blanket statements about legal work you made in this thread immediately peg you as ignorant about law, not just about drafting documents, but about how law is practiced generally.

Just another racial hierarchy upon which you place people with darker complexions on a lower rung. — NOS4A2

Why is that? Because I think people with a white skin get hired easier, are less often deemed suspects in criminal cases, get shot by police less often, I somehow place people with a darker complexion on a lower rung? No I simply think there is a lot of prejudice against people with a darker skin and that that means they have fewer chances in life and are required to prove themselves more than people with a light complexion. Those are cultural traits.

What does the spectrum of complexion have to do with culture? — NOS4A2

See my explanation above. There are cultural prejudices against people with darker skin.

The law does not speak, sure, but it is spoken. A judge cannot interpret her way out of it. — NOS4A2

You are not a lawyer eh? Best leave it at that. I am not going into that because I am used to being paid to give legal education. What you can do is read a few pages back in the thread, read the article Atheist provided and my comments and you may have an inkling what lawyers can and cannot do. This remark is just intellectual laziness.

You’d have to assume she’s been wronged, and base it on nothing other than the color of her skin. So already you place her on a lower rung in a racial hierarchy. — NOS4A2

No I only need to assume that there is a privilege to being white. All in research I know of confirms that privilege.

Upon what assumption do you assume she has a different perspective? — NOS4A2

Because people with a dark skin color are treated differently then people with white skin color in certain societies, as I think if the case in the US. In any case the incarceration rates is disproportionately higher for blacks than for whites and yes they run a higher chance to be murdered and so on. The only thing that I need to make plausible is that she probably had different experiences in dealing with with others in US society than whites to make her perspective a useful addition. I think it is plausible that she had different experiences.

pseudoscientific racial distinctions and nothing besides — NOS4A2

Of course not. My assumption that there are differences in perspective is formed because I find it credible that based on cultural hierarchies reiterated in discourse and practice, black people have been subjected to different experiences in life from white people.

but perhaps I’m wrong — NOS4A2

indeed

I’m not lawyer, but I assume that the only perspective that matters in a court is the word of the law. — NOS4A2

And you are again wrong. Read my discussion with mr Atheist. The law does not speak. Judges do, they interpret the law.

So-called “positive” race discrimination suggests a belief in the inferiority of the races they are designed to help. But this nomination isn’t a form of affirmative action, and it isn’t clear that Biden thinks women with darker complexions are inferior. — NOS4A2

Positive iscrimination is a way to redress past wrongs and an attempt at creating equal starting positions. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority.

Neither is it about racial justice. Biden worked really hard to filibuster Judge Janice Brown back in the Bush days, and threatened to do the same if she was ever nominated for Supreme Court. He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

I guess he wants a black woman with a similar political agenda.

Rather, it is about identity politics, in this case using race and gender to score political points in the hopes of retaining political power now and in the future, the ethics of racial discrimination be damned. — NOS4A2

That might be a practical concern of course, politicians like to appeal to their constituencies.

You can see the justification of this form of discrimination in this very thread, complete with essentialist notions about her experience, different knowledge, and different ways of thinking, which are racist assumptions if I’ve ever seen them. So if it isn’t racist according to your definition, it soon will be. — NOS4A2

Not different ways of thinking but different perspectives. Having different perspectives represented might lead to better in the sense of better informed legal judgments. In the US there is also the principle right of judgment before ones peers to be kept in mind. That does deal with equal representation. Considered in the long term would it not also be representationally fair if a woman of color gets a chance to shape the law of the land? That is, if one thinks that judgment is a matter of being held to account by a forum of peers. (I do not necessarily think it is, but in the US with its jury system this seems to be an entrenched principle of law)
Law is, as I have tried to show a hermeneutic enterprise in which the presence of a plethora of background assumptions is beneficial. Now it is not by necessity that a woman or a or a black person brings a different perspective to the table, but it is more likely than that a white man does.

That is strange... I can seem to access it alright but not link it....
The article is called "Kelsen's theory of the basic norm" by Joseph Raz.... odd how this works or does not work.

It is self referential, it is the exact norm through which\ law states its law like character, At least that is how I understand him. There is no other norm below the grundnorm, it is a logical necessity. But lets get to the bottom if this :) here is Raz' take on it.... link Raz

Again, this reference should not be seen as an argument to support my case. It is, instead, for you to consider that your socially ingrained adoration of law is viewed by many philosophers, including from Plato's time on, as a false, misplaced adoration. — god must be atheist

No, I am not adoring the law as you say. I have read the article and I must say, so many words to state such an obvious thing! However I think the writer is mistaken, or at least not penetrating enough on a number of areas.

First of all. We are not in disagreement, certainly law and justice are intertwined. However, compare your case to his. In your case on Jones and Perez you smuggled in a hidden assumption, namely that we knew with certainty that Perez indeed owed money to Jones. In a court of law there are two types of rules, rules of substantive law (material law) which states what needs to be done. In this case Perez needs to repay the money. There are also rules of evidence, they belong to the realm of procedural, formal law and pertain what counts as evidence. In the case you present, there is some sort of a priori knowledge, but we do not have that. Therefore we need to allocate the burden of proof. It might well be than that the wrong party gets to keep the money because the other could not prove it. That is only unjust with the benefit of hindsight.

Now D'Amato's article is actually about something very different, it is about substantive law. He makes a couple of claims. With most I take no issue at all. The first is his contention that "We cannot do justice if we are blind to the law. It is critical to underline the 'facticity' of law. Law is a topographical fact just like a hill or valley or stream. It is something that exists. But it is not something that has normative power."

I do not agree with law not having normative power. It appeals to obedience by being issued as law and not as a command of a gang of thieves. That said, it is not the only precept that has normative power. there are notions, such as equality, equity, fairness, that hold normative power too and they can trump the normative power of the law. I also do not agree that law is a fact like a hill or stream. That is a silly comparison. It means that the law is simply an obstacle to overcome. It is not, it determines behaviour in a very different way. It makes an appeal to the reader of what he or she should be doing, not what they can or cannot do, as a physical impediment does. It orders our society and also signals mutual expectations. It also, and that is the crux of my argument defines what we see as justice. Amato thinks justice informs the law but the relationship is a deal more complicated than that. He gives the example of stealing oranges from a yard. It is our sense of justice he contends that makes us know we will not escape punishment. However, there is nothing inherently just in the institution of private property I would content. It came about through law ways, not even written law, probably customary law, but law nonetheless. We have just internalized it and called it 'justice'.

Secondly, he thinks that when a literal interpretation of the law leads to flagrantly unjust results we need to take recourse to justice and we also do. He cites the case of riggs v Palmer where the testator is murderer by the beneficiary and the courts did not award him the inheritance. He also uses this example in the hypothetical he constructed of the poor child being killed in an accident.

I think here he underestimates the resilience of the law and makes an appeal to some sort of category unnecessarily vague, justice. It is of course clear that in the hypothetical case the judges should acquit Alice. D' Amato thinks that this follows from justice concerns. However that leads to problems because than we have to conclude that when justice conflicts with law justice trumps law. However, our sense of justice is not always equal. Law as a whole system would than only be conditionally valid. Worse is that it sets up a false dichotomy. We would have to say that the conviction of Alice was legally right, but from a justice perspective wrong. Difficult to reconcile with the normative force of law. Fortunately there is another way.

I contend that the judges should acquit Alice not only out of justice concerns but out of legal concerns! That needs some more penetrating legal analysis. Alice crosses the white lines, but what are those white lines for? They are there to prevent accidents. The legal good they protect is the health of the participants in traffic. Alice crossed them to avoid damaging the health of a participant in traffic namely the darting child. She did exactly what the law wanted. A conviction would actually tell people not to do what the law wants, as the hypothetical also shows by presenting the case of Bruce. The verdict to convict Alice is not only wrong from a justice point of view, it is bad from a legal point of view. To that end Dworkin coined (or refined) the notion of legal principle. The law is not just what is on paper, below it there are principles at stake which lay embedded in the law. They determine whether violations of the law as it literally stands should b admitted or not. And indeed judges behave like that. They do not appeal to justice in order not to get into endless controversies but to legal principles as in the case Riggs v Palmer.

Of course such cases have been tried and we now have the ' lesser evils defense' in criminal law, appealing that you action might be justified because you averted a greater danger. It is now simply part of the law.

So what I have been trying to show you is that you mischaracterize law. It is not divorced from justice but justice emerges in a different guise, as a principle embedded within the law. The law of evidence may well be just even though in retrospect it may lead to unjust outcomes in a few individual cases. However the caricature you make out of law and lawyers, simply algorithmic rule followers, is a miss characterization. They are adapt at legal argument. If they reside in a sound legal order there will not be gross miscarriages of justice and when they occur the law and the judiciary should thoroughly self examine.

@Benkei Well not knowing anything about corporate law my 2 cts are as good as anyone else's. The SPA might be between two Dutch companies, but apparently there is a Slovak company involved and this slovak company is in the process of a name change. Can you not refer the company with its old name and add something like 'as registered' and refer to the new name as ' in the process of being registered as.... ' ? I know corporate law can be very formulaic, Turkish corporate law in any case is, which resembles this kind of problem.

Anyway, I deeply disliked corportate law ;) so back to my beloved Grundnorm and the issue of Natural law in the Amato article. Oddly enough it came up in the free will discussion so it is well worth spending some time on.. The Grundnorm first, indeed it is a sovereign act of law creation, the only one there is in the Kelsenian system. It is designed to end the ' turtles all the way down' one gets when following the steps of the legality of rules. It ends somewhere and it ends for Kelsen in a sovereign act of law creation. " I am the law!" to speak with Judge Dredd... It is an act by whoch a community establishes itself as a community under the law. It is itself not based on anything indeed but on a sovereign act.

That can't be. The Grundnorm is the norm that all other norms, rules and law, derive from. By definition it cannot be based on something else. — Benkei

No no, my apologies. I wrote it wrong. The Grundnorm is not based on justice. The Grundnorm is simpy the norm all other norms derive their binding force from.

I was reading discworld novels when studying Kelsen and I thought the "turtles all the way down" was an apt metaphor for his Grundnorm. He never defined it and I thought it was a cop out to try to avoid saying something like, it's based on divine law, it's natural law etc. I didn't particularly like him. I liked Hart better. — Benkei

They are similar in my view. Just that for Kelsen a Grundnorm is an act of state. Hart with his more common law ancestry defines it not as an act of state but an act of legal professionals.

Turtles all the way down is an apt metaphor except that in law the turtle ends somewhere. Namely at that force that has the power to say "we the people..." etc. In the Westphalian order it is the state.

I'm confronted with the Brno legal positivist school in my daily work actually. Kelsen lives on in Slovakia which for practical purposes totally sucks. — Benkei

Why are you confronted with the Brno legal positivist school? Not that I have an inkling of what they think in Brno, but it sounds cool. I am interested, please tell me more!

Yes, that is the problem, isn't it? What are you going to believe, your own experience of thinking, acting, and living, which demonstrates the reality of free will, or some half baked notion that the world is "naturalistically determined"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I do not think the second notion is that half baked. I also do not believe that my experience necessarily proves the reality of something, so I do think we are in a genuine philosophical conundrum.

But, do we not know enough about the laws of nature to conclude that the world is naturalistically determined? — Garrett Travers

I might well agree with you on that. From a naturalistic metaphysical point of view, free will is difficult to understand to begin with. From the perspective that everything happens in law governed chains of cause and effect, free will is hard to fathom. It would mean that something out there magically escapes that chain and acts as an uncaused causer and lo and behold it resides within our brain... so from a naturalistic standpoint I think free will is very unlikely to begin with and all the sciences based on it, like neurosciences seem to confirm that idea. the naturalistic metaphysics is the metaphysical position of the sciences today and for good reason.

The problem is that that particular brand of metaphysics cannot make sense of the particular experience of freedom of choice. Saying it is an illusion will not help because an illusion tends to disappear when it is punctured. The experience of choice and freedom is irreducible to illusion though. In philosophy the phrase is that the first person is irreducible to the third person perspective. At least that is the take I have on free will. For me it is part of a bigger problem / human condition but those ideas I will hold to myself for now.

I would say that what is important (from the POV of the individual) is the experience or feeling of freedom. And since the question cannot be answered then it doesn't matter. If it could be answered and the answer was that freedom (in the full libertarian sense) is completely illusory, then that might matter to individuals, since such a realization might demotivate or demoralize people. It would more definitely matter for the idea of moral responsibility, praise and blame. — Janus

Sure I think the question has existential importance. Strawson reasons it away and so I do not embrace his approach. In Strawson's view though we need the registers of freedom and of determinism and use them to assess the behavior of others. whether the world is really really determined we cannot know and therefore it would be merely impoverishing if we would do away with the register of freedom and treat everyone as if they were determined. My take on it is different though, though I arrive at more or less the same conclusion.

As for the traffic lights example, sure, traffic lights could also be used to make people less free. We could in theory prevent a whole class of people from going to work by hindering their community with traffic lights, than it would make them less free. What I think you arrive at though is not that teh definition of freedom is contextual, the actual assessment of who is free and who is not is contextual, determined by the facts of the case.

@banno No disagreement with you there. Indeed I am on the same page. I do not really know why that necessarily would lead to virtue ethics though and I like to ask you that question. Why would it lead to virtue ethics? Not to quibble with you because I am quite partial to virtue ethics as well, but to see why you think there is a connection there that first better with virtue ethics than with say utilitarianism or deontology.