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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks :sparkle: :flower:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The links I gave you were not my sources of information. My sources of information are old books about education and include old grade school textbooks that are no longer in circulation. And thank you so much for recognizing the biggest reason humans disagree is different sources of information. I seem to be at war with everyone because my sources of information came from the past. — Athena

That is very interesting. I am really interested in your research because indeed schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society. In that sense I really like this foray in different education systems. I did (and do) not know enough about the change in education system in the 18th and 19th century. So your old text books are really great sources of information. Can I ask, do you have a theory for your research, in other words is it guided by a certain hypothesis or theoretical framework? I am immediately thinking about a Foucauldian research on 'governmentality' and what the governmentality is of these different systems of schooling, the old American way and the Prussian system. Do you do your research yourself or in the context of a PhD research? Is there a research community or are you working on this by yourself?

My apologies. The problem you mentioned in this paragraph was totally my fault and I realized that while driving to the store. I regretted not having a more playful response to what you said about Athena. And as I said above, I feel like I stand alone because of the old books giving me a different perspective. I feel very burdened by the information I gathered many years ago, when I began buying old books about education to gain an understanding of my grandmother's generation of teachers, who thought they were defending democracy in the classroom. :lol: :cry: Oh, the futility of it all. My grandmother was a very important source of information and you would have to know her to know why. She and her generation are all dead now and facts are not enough to explain how different our past was. — Athena

Yes, yes, well we all have the idea we do the right thing and we all grow up in certain systems, certain ways of doing we take for granted now. That is the beauty of Foucauldian research and the beauty of the research you do, because it might show how this system we all take for granted is not all that 'natural' or 'logical'. However, also us have that bias and even you as a researcher, in that respect you need a lot of extra information, surrounding the schooling system. That explains my question about the embeddedness of your research, because you would be burdened doing everything by yourself without other to talk to and to compare data with others who share a similar interest. Historic research is very hard to do because you need a grasp of the interlocking structures of these societies you examine.

The root of the illusion of disagreement is the difference between Prussia and Germany. Have you read Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem'? He was trying to warn the world of Germany's intentions to go to war and he was ignored until the first world war had begun. This was one of the first books I bought when I began my research. I bought it because of great admiration for the Germans and I had heard the US had adopted the German model of education. The other book I bought that same day, was a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Convention. These two books are the beginning of the burden I feel. — Athena

No, I cannot say I have read that book. I also do not know it. It might be. There is a history behind WW1 as well of course. Recently historians are more sensitive to the idea that the narrative that Germany (or austria-Hungary together with Germany) started the big war. There are many causes and resaons for such a war. However, indeed The 19th century was a golden age for Germany and the dominant force in Germany was Prussia.

I do wonder about this burden you feel. As a researcher I hardly feel any burden myself also not when I see things going wrong. Burdens you wish to resolve. As a researcher I feel I do not want anything, I just gather data and analyze and offer my analysis. If you want to resolve issues, you are in danger of turning into an activist. What is your personal stake in the research if I may ask?

They became politically irresponsible and this really distressed Charles because he saw them as the superior people. All this relates to what happened to the US and Trump being our Hitler and the political struggles we have now because of reactionary politics just as Germany had before Hitler was able to take power. There is an education link to all of this. — Athena

I agree there is an educational link. I think one should be careful to compare historical times with current ones. I would not easily compare Trump to Hitler even though I am not fond of the former president. Where I think parallels lie is because of 'depolitization' of society at least on the level of education. But it is a thorny one, the Weimar republic was torn apart in struggles between left, extreme left and conservative. Hitler came to power in a society that falling apart, polarization is visible now too, but of a different kind. It is tempting to paint broad brush strokes, but one needs to keep being sensitive to the differences.

Please give that paragraph some thought so you get the nuances in what I am saying. What I am saying is not without nuances! I just can not say everything all at once. Imagine entering a relatively high-tech war, with a population that knows though about technology. No typist, no mechanics, no engineers, but they know about Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Lincoln as national heroes and have an idea of what is expected of them as good citizens. You know, like God's good children. They knew our national mythology that had as much to do with real-life as Homer's books, that told the Greeks how to be Greeks. (Americanized Greek mythology) — Athena

Yes, I do and find it fascinating. Also here I see many links to governmentality research. The states of Europe, in the 18th and 19th due to mutual competition perfected the science of the state, aptly called 'statistics'. Germany, but also France and the UK had to mobilize the people to gain the upper hand in the race for the colonies. In the US there was space enough, no competition and there was enough land to carve out a good agricultural living. However, do not idealize one form or the other. Those children of God also ruthlessly murdered the native Americans and institutionalized a system of racial aprtheid until well into the 20th century. Ideas in the 18th and 19th century were just very backward everywhere.

The Prussians lived for the love of military might, as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. So we technologically were in big trouble but now think of the teachers' argument. Education for patriotic citizens and mobilizing the nation for war. The book of the1917 National Education Association is full of interesting information about mobilizing for war. — Athena

There is of course and it is a fascinating read. Warfare was something in which to take pride. The Prussians indeed cultivated this sense, but the US had to catch up fast and of course in 1917 the US was embroiled in a cataclysmic European war, no wonder the subject of mass mobilization is of great interest.

Now let us jump to 1958 and the new warfare of air warfare and nuclear missiles. President Eisenhower put the Military-Industrial Complex, also known as Hitler's New World Order, in place, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act is an essential piece to the Military-Industrial Complex. We can now mobilize for war in 4 hours or less, long before the citizens need to be mobilized for war. Patriotism was essential to past wars, it is no longer important. Are you thinking of the differences in education and the cultural differences? I hope so. I hope you come back with a reply that advances this discussion. — Athena

Yes I am. Whether I have an answer I do not know. Of course we have technological warfare now. The patriotic spirit in the sense of 'dying for one's country' is less needed. If we want to educate the people for war we would need to ferret out the technical minds. The way we make war palatable now is to present it as a computer game. the images are of people falling not of them crying in agony. War is sensitized. It is not presented in a patriotic way but as something that happens far away, in another world. War has become something to manage. War has become 'eco-nomics', household management. The word is very different from your grand mother's cold war world.

That is also why I am puzzled sometimes with the things you say. What do you mean with 'Hitler's new world order'? I thought the world order we inherited was the world order of the cod war, a bipolar world order pitting capitalism against communism...

Specialization is poison to democracy! Can we turn to classical literature once again? Pericles' raised the spirits of his fellow citizens at a funeral for fallen warriors, by comparing the differences between Sparta and Athens, and why Athens is right to defend its way of life in war. Sparta specialized their males for military service. All other work was done by slaves. Sparta determined what citizens needed and provided it through the use of slaves. Our technocracy is in line with Sparta the enemy of Athens. — Athena

Too unnuanced for my taste. Maybe ok as a comparison, but Athens' democracy was also build on slaves and could only work by excluding the great mass of people from consensus decision making. The same actually goes for the US in times past. The model of democracy you seem to favour actually requires the exclusion of many people and many legitimate interests. Enlightenment democracy is democracy for the happy few. In the 19th century the challenge the Prussians faced and later the rest of the world was how to manage a mass society, a society in which everyone wanted a voice. One way was discipline and drilling as the school system does. You call specialization a poison to democracy and that goes hand in hand with this. Specialization though might well his sociological inevitability. It is not coincidental that the great sociologists of old were... Germans. The greatest of which, Max Weber, grew up in Prussia and very meticulously already analyzed the 'iron cage' of bureaucratization.

The US had education that generalized everyone. Education for well-rounded individual growth. At the same time was education for independent thinking. These differences are why I keep speaking of the 1958 change in education that most certainly took us in the direction of specialization and replaced education for independent thinking with "groupthink". We have been killing our democracy since 1958. — Athena

However, the Prussian model was than already firmly adopted. So was it then the Prussian model or the act of mass mobilization? Again there is no fundamental disagreement and I think your research is fascinating. We cannot go back to the times of old and I would also not idealize those. Too many genocides are committed by people who live on earth revering heroes. The old native ones were eradicated... The challenge will be to keep mass education, it is a fundamental right and I think fundamental to a healthy modern democracy, but to bring back a sense of generalization, extend our awareness through space and time, because also the world is becoming smaller and the 'now' is extending itself rapidly, as evinced by discussions of our past and rights of future generations. Anoth imperative is restoring some sort of link with the earth and our environment, in a democratic way. No easy task though.

If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace. — Agent Smith

Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'...

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple — Agent Smith

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. — Agent Smith

Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.

And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here. — Agent Smith

You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.

Which would you prefer?

1. To save your friend without violence

or

2. To save your friend with violence

?

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2). — Agent Smith

1 of course. However sometimes that is impossible. It does not go anywhere to answer the question whether violence can be ethical though. If I could safe my friend 1. through donating a kidney or 2. I could save him without donating a kidney I would also choose 2. That does not make me donating a kidney any less ethical to save my friend any less ethical.

@Manuel Thanks Manuel for letting me know you experience it! That is real cool, cheers :cool:

The reason I said that you should pick your battles was not because of qualms with you over this subject. It was through your connection of it to Biden's foreign policy. I respect your knowledge on the education system and that is why I honestly asked you for sources so I could inform myself with them, which you graciously gave. Your claims about Biden being undemocratic I found unconvincing and therefore I told you so. Your connection of them in my view weakens the strength of your argument and I think it is also a field in which you are less at home, but I may be wrong. Of course feel free to ignore them. I noticed something else as well, namely that when we breach a topic such as environmentalism and its Manichean roots we somehow ended up talking about education. That happened earlier as well as I recall.

Anyway, I respect you very much on this particular topic. I did not wish to come off condescending, if so I apologize. On the other hand I also do not find your statement that I should be on topic very fair. I also did not use that line against you when you broached the subject of environmentalism and the question of Manichean religion. I like to explore this topic of education with you and rest assured I respect you knowledge.

That said there are some reasons to think you paint an overly dark and indeed Manichean picture of the former US system and the Prussian system of education. Certainly, the education system developed in Prussia was aimed at nation building. It was also aimed at giving the populace the skills to survive in a very rapidly changing world in which bureaucracy and industrialization became driving forces. The German society in the 18th century was nothing like it is now. Illiteracy was rampant, petty princes ruled petty kingdoms, the population lived in conditions of serfdom, also mentioned on the wikipedia page you gave as a source. There was no such thing as mass education. thinking for oneself was at the time always only done by an elite of either merchant classes or nobility. It is easy to criticize a system of mass schooling from the luxury of the modern day world, but I would reckon the access to reading and writing for the population was a big step up from what it had been.

Moreover the idea of nation building in the way described in the video is abhorrent to us of course and especially with the second world war in mind the video becomes even more ominous. However seen in the light of the history of Germany it was not such a silly idea. In the 17th century Germany has fought one of the most ruthless civil wars in history that depopulated much of the country and led to 30 years of warfare in which the German realms (it was not a country back than) tore themselves apart. Germany faced powerful and colonial neighbors in France and Russia. Seen from the perspective of the European history of incessant warfare, the German goals become understandable. The picture of emperor Frederick also deserves a bit of nuance. He was seen as an enlightenment figure in correspondence with Voltaire and a benefactor of the arts and sciences. that goes to show again that your appeal to enlightenment ideals is not as straightforward as you expect them to be. enlightenment ideals value order, progress and mastery of the natural world through education and technology. How they turn out in practice is much more difficult to predict. They may also be used by an emperor who rules despotically.

There are also reasons to view the youtube clip with a bit of suspicion. Firstly it cherry picks among the quotes of Fichte. The wikipedia page for instance gives this as a Fichte quote: "Fichte asked for shaping of the personality of students: "The citizens should be made able and willing to use their own minds to achieve higher goals in the framework of a future unified German nation state"." Now that sounds very different already.

The second reason is a look at the one of the most 'command and control' institutions there is, the military. Prussian military tactics and later German military tactics were base on a combination of obedience and creativity. The adoption of a much more flexible approach to warfare based on objectives to be reached, but leeway to the commanders in the field as to how to reach them, required creativity and independent thinking. These abilities led to Germany being able to take on much more powerful foes 'on paper'. this actually mirrors the German research university, which also fosters creative, if specialized research. What I see in sociological terms is the bureaucratization an professionalization of education Now of course all for the greater glory of the nation, but they were regrettably very nationalistic times. We are talking about the age of colonialism, a very dark age in European history.

The third reason is that the video draws a straight line from Prussian education to Hitler and calls Fichte (Not pronounced 'Fitcht', or something but Fi'h'te) the father of modern neo-nazism. That claim is just silly. Why not simply nazism but neo-nazism? Those are different people from different cultural eras. The Prussian educational system might well be conducive to creating a law and order mentality that benefited Hitler's rise but it totally forgets the Weimar era in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

The Weimar Republic during its heyday in the 1920th saw all kinds of liberal reforms, art and culture flourished as never before and it was in many respects truly 'avant garde'. Apparently the same education system that brought Hitler to power was also capable of creating a cultural renaissance. therefore I think the picture is one sided.

That does not mean I disagree with your basic tenet, that education is too much aimed at creating output in the sense of unquestioning students that have merely mastered skills. I am frequently at odds with the educational professionals that want for me to create students who master a certain skill or other and who through a system of continuous self discipline, strive for excellence which mean mastery of their narrow field. I take a different approach, namely an argumentative spirit, there are no or not many right or wrong answers, but there is argument and argumentation is a joust, a challenge. I think that is why you also felt attacked by me.

Anyway I think there is more than meets the eye. We need a new type of education, one that moves towards questioning and investigation and towards interdisciplinarity instead of specialization. More and more it becomes clear we need to see problems not in specialistic isolation but in a holistic way, leaving space for uncertainty and complexity. It will ask a lot of us, because the old model is the one we use still even thought it may well be out dated. In that we can shake hands (if the pandemic would not prevent it...)

However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.

Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility. — Agent Smith

If my only recourse to save a friend who is in danger without having provoked or caused the danger, is by using force than my action is not only permissible, it is also ethical. (subject to limitations of proportionality, subsidiarity, 'ultimum remedium' etc) At least I maintain that is is, Tzeentch does not.

We have promoted ideas of superiority in obvious ways, such as the notion that going to the "right colleges" makes people superior to those who just went to a community or a state college. Or those who have A grades are superior to those who have C grades. Or those who believe this and not that, are superior. Perhaps if we continue to discuss this I can think of betters words for explaining what has gone terribly wrong! It is not just that what we know that is important but also how we learn to think. — Athena

I do not mind continuing this discussion at all. after all I am in education, though in the Netherlands, not in the US. We have no private schools (yet) for instance, but only community or state education. We do not have Ivy league colleges but nearly all our state universitties are in the top 100 world wide. I am not saying that to brag or anything but display that our system is still much more egalitarian.

I have my own ideas of how the grading system works, what education does, and it is not all positive or a success story. I am a keen reader of Michel Foucault. I do wonder where you got the distinction between the US and 'Hitler's' system of education from. never heard this comparison and it seems way too unnuanced for me. So if you could point out to me where you got these ideas from I would sincerely appreciate it.

I also think you should be careful mixing subjects. International relations is something different from the education system. All kinds of moves are played in the international arena and no, that arena is not democratic. the Westphalian order sees states as sovereign, not subject to some higher democratic body. Focus your ideas and take one step at the time. I sound overly school master like maybe. but focus and you will be able to win your battles.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will be victorious in every battle, know neither the enemy nor yourself and you will succumb in every battle "Sun Tzu, the art of war, paraphrased. A Goddess of strategy needs to learn these things.

That is what Schopenhauer says yes. Willing is much more direct according to S. When we experience pain for instance we experience pain, pure and simple. It does not matter whether the pain is caused by a phantom limb or by a small black box like in the book Dune. The pain is real. So Schopenhauer state we have access to the real via another way than our reason, namely our will. Clever man Schopenhauer was, very clever. Clever and cranky though, very cranky.

Then it is not truth, and they were not facts. — Tzeentch

And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they?

A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence. — Tzeentch

Do you have children? If so they will become the victim of your ignorance whether you want it or not.

Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic. — Tzeentch

Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presents

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch

a reason for his/her actions. Is it an appeal to logic? No. It is a justification of her use of force. It is actually an appeal to inductive reasoning. She feared the gunman might shoot again. Everything pointed towards it, though there was no certainty the gunman would have fired. It is an appeal to practical wisdom indeed.

The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition. — Tzeentch

I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.

If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?

And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?

More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles. — Tzeentch

Indeed. In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. That does not mean rote learning of context independent principles, it means evaluating the context we find ourselves in and handling the context appropriately. That is what learning means. Now of course there may be differences as to what an appropriate reaction is. The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.

To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.

Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic. — Tzeentch

I disagree, a lot depends on upbringing, learning, social environment etc. We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. However, society

Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?

These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference. — Tzeentch

Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you. You let nobody tell you otherwise though because that be societal influence trying to brainwash you...

As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake. — Tzeentch

Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you... I want to be able to be offered shelter by a friend. I expect them to lie for me if need be. The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid... This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.

In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.

I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it. — Tzeentch

Sure, nothing wrong with uncompromising and blunt and I say that without any sarcasm. I may well have misread it. If so my apologies. I value your remarks and page long replies as well.

This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apar — Tzeentch

To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch

t when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.

You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.

I disagree. Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective. We appeal to common usage of terms, common reason indeed. However not in the meaning you attach to it, deducible principles independent of context. The search has been on for centuries but in this absolutist guise it has been fruitless.

A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.

If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it. — Tzeentch

No we do not need to accept that conclusion, but we have to work a little harder than just saying: "violence is unethical, you use violence against a married woman, therefore you act unethically". Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.

In fact Your ethics restricts you to only apply judgment to yourself and your own actions. Thinking for others is unethical. There is no reason for you to help this woman. Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. then we have to try to find common ground and indeed look for principles, but a wholly different kind of principles. We will have to go about asking what the essence of law is, what does law do and what is its corner stone. I would say it is equal treatment. Are laws justified that make such a difference between man and woman. I would say it is against the nature of law to do so. Therefore I would try to convince the other of my arguments or at least try to convince my government not to sign an arms deal with such a country. The main difference is that for me ethics is only relevant when it is dialogical, discursive, argumentative. You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. I do not see that as relevant because we are not on our own.

One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.

Here's another example: Kiri-sute gomen

The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.

What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.

I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical. — Tzeentch

Your point is clear and the same reasoning applies. We try to convince and argue and try to find common ground. And indeed, it pays off! In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.

To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch

Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics. I agree if everyone would see the wisdom in your words we would all be safe, but not everyone does.

Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.

If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II. — Tzeentch

our world in stats

Look especially at the homicide rates over time. They plummeted. Sure mass atrocities may still occur. we never know when a next more deadly war will happen. What we do know is that the categorical imperative will not prevent it, but communication and the great entwinement of the global world order just might.

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch

I agree with that sentiment, but examining them is something else than cutting them. I even so wholeheartedly agree that I consider the social climate, upbringing and bonds necessary for our emancipation as moral agents. That means that 'social brainwashing' as you name it, has its particular function as a moment of our emancipation.

Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect. — Tzeentch

That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access. Or, at least, there is someone like you inside of everyone, but not nearly everyone, I daresay not nearly most, accept your conclusions. Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.

Ok.... that was my longest PF post yet I think and that considering that I should be working. Ohh dear...

Nahhh, no worries. It wasn't criticism, it just made me smile because earlier in the threat I said the question needed specification on this point... :D I just found it funny to say: "now you see what happens!" It is actually a good debate I think so cheers to you for opening the thread.

See John, this whole debate would have been entirely avoided had you just specified the ethical system from which you asked your question. ;) I am not an ethicist, but ascribe to some sort of virtue ethics. Actually I draw on various ethical systems on a casuistic bases, they are great at providing plausible arguments. A strict deontologist will never be convinced by an equally strict utilitarian and otherwise. If there is one ethical maxim I hold on to is that one should never absolutize ethical systems because doing that leads to the exact contradictions you like to avoid.

To me those two cannot be seperated. That which is Good or right must be based on truth. That which is wrong must be based on falsehoods or delusions. Truth-seeking is therefore a vital part of ethics. — Tzeentch

And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .

That would be an appeal to authority. Unless said person can back up their claims with reason, I would not put any value in any experience or authority on a subject they might have. — Tzeentch

No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement. Not compared to some unshakable foundation but compared to plausible arguments.

Like you said, my view of ethics is dependent on there being some truth to be discovered, or common reasoning. However, we may never be sure of these things, which is why I am also against imposing one's views on others. One's ethics should concern oneself and one's own behavior in regards to others alone. Attempting to force one's views on others risks making them the victim of one's ignorance. — Tzeentch

Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. I agree on common reasoning, that is the intersubjectivity criterion that you despises. I disagree with your search for fundamental ethical truths. And so since we are not sure of these things, no one's view can be imposed on others.... well so much for society than. Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?

But yes, to put it clearly, my view is that some of the principles I have discussed so far are (potentially) fundamental and I try to back this up by showing how ignoring those principles leads to slippery slopes in which notions of right and wrong become meaningless and all violent behaviors can be justified. — Tzeentch

But I do not think they are so we do not have common ground, so there is no common principle, ergo no basis for our ethics. The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.

I think in that situation the police agent's use of violence was still unethical, even if it had desirable effects as well. He had to take a life; something which I consider highly undesirable. Considering his circumstances it is understandable, however his choices in life contributed to putting himself in a position where he may have to take a life. Nothing forced him to associate with a society in which it is normal to murder children, yet he did. — Tzeentch

His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. We are born here, raised here, we speak the language of our society. I am happy that he chose to put himself in that position, because others, me for instance, might be too hesitant and it would lead to more harm. Seems to me he was the right man at the right place. A cause for social celebration for celebration.

He could have kept his mouth shut. — Tzeentch

It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, otherwise you would have said something, saving life and limb by sending the murderer off to elsewhere. There might be one nice move to make, but it would need another maxim, namely one does not talk to murders. However that too, would fall to the objection that this ideal world is totally removed from the real one.

At risk of repeating myself, this is akin to excusing violence whenever one or others deem it convenient. At most it serves as a explanation as to why individuals choose violence, but not as a limitation on it.

The problem with this line of reasoning is clear; person A deems it fine to commit violence against person B because person A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved. — Tzeentch

You have a condescending tone which is not based on the strength of your argument, I dislike that, Anyway, no it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments. A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered.

Every violent group action is justified.

This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity. — Tzeentch

No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder. Other things might, witchcraft might. Well than it is up to others to demonstrate there is no such thing as witchcraft and that killing someone on that basis is the same as killing an innocent man. No society condones the killing of the innocent except in certain situations such as war. The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. Again your either
/ or dychotomy. Or we have some fundamental principle (which we do not have as you earlier conceded) or we have nothing. In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society.

More likely, there are factors that, in your view, can excuse violence. Self-defense for example, so it would probably be more useful to move on to those critical factors, because this intersubjectivity line of reasoning doesn't work and indeed any line of reasoning that depends on opinion rather than a fundamental truth or principle ends this way. — Tzeentch

Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.

That is a weak excuse! One cannot control the goings-on of the world, but one can control one's own behavior and whether one lives in accordance to ideals is a product of one's will to do so. The problem is that we often lack the desire to do so, or doing so conflicts with our desires. — Tzeentch

This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds.

I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections. — Tzeentch

The problem is you think you are perfect. I am happy it does make everyone the victim of its own imperfection, i.e. place traffic lights at highways, coordinates aid relief and indeed, tasks a judiciary and a police force with the task of fighting crime and insure an ordered society.

I disagree. What was unethical 1,000 years ago is unethical now, and vice versa. We can't cherry pick based on what is convenient, normal or accepted. Burning witches at the stake was never ethical, even if it was accepted at points in history. — Tzeentch

Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong. True and false might be context independent (though I am not sure I agree with that either) but right or wrong is context dependent. I am not saying that wat matters is opinion I am saying that what matters is context. Using violence to save a friend might be right or wrong dependent on context, not dependent on historical epoch. When violence is used, the violence is presumed to be wrong, unless plausible argument can be given in regard to why it was right in the case at hand. To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so. Because something might be right or wrong, but if we cannot tell right from wrong, it does not matter a tidbit.

It is opinion, then. This will get us nowhere when we try to talk about ethics, because opinions are so different between individuals, time periods and locations. If we accept this approach, it would be more appropriate to talk about customs or culture rather than ethics. — Tzeentch

I do not think opinions are so different between individuals. Actually ethics, also in the absolutist variation you propose is only possible if opinions are not that different, or at least we must presuppose that by the light of common reason we can discern ethical principles. Actually, common reason must be more an assumption of yours than it needs to be mine. For you it is necessary that we can mentally at every age discern ethical principles by deduction alone. For me, only a fallibilist conception that we can find common ground is enough.

Lets hear it! — Tzeentch

Well, if I am a police agent and I see a man shooting with a machine gun in a school aiming to kill teachers and pupils and I take him down with my fire arms, than I am praised and awarded and rightly so. My violence was necessary to stop further blood shed. I think even Kant would agree: We have an imperfect duty to intervene in this case. We cannot will people who inflict violence on the innocent to keep committing these kinds of acts (Kant was a notable proponent of the death penalty).

Another famous example, which brought Kant himself into trouble is the murderer at the door scenario. In Kant's scheme lying is categorically wrong just like in yours violence is. When confronted with the question of whether it is ok to lie when a friend hides inside your house from a murderer and the murderer asks the straightforward question whether this friend is in the house, Kant was forced to say that lying would not be appropriate in this case. For ages now Kantian scholars are trying to save the moralist from Konigberg from himself.

Ok, I can get behind that, but there's a principle hidden in that last sentence.

But why would we want a world free of violence if we have all these opinions telling us it's perfectly fine to use in certain situations?

Not too long ago all the superpowers in the world were spending trillions on developing bombs that could wipe the Earth clean of life, all in the name of self-defense and "necessary violence". Doesn't it seem our leniency towards practical considerations is contrary to our goals? On what basis should we allow ourselves such leniency? — Tzeentch

There is a principle indeed, but principles in my line of reasoning work different then in yours. For you they are categorical prohibitions, principles work like rules. For me they are not, principles work as guidelines, leading lights, but by no means the only ones. I think you are mistaken about the nature of principles, which is actually common and reminds me of the debate between the legal philosophers HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. The intervention by Dwokin was a very timely one and brought attention to the function of principles in law.

Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. In an ideal world there are no bad situations so no need for violence. However we do not live in an ideal world we live in an actual one. That does not mean we should not strive to live in an ideal world and ban violence as much as possible.

I don't require such rules. Who does, exactly? You? Society? The world? Coincidentally, it seems they who require such rules are usually those who stand most to gain. — Tzeentch

Society needs such rules, we call it law. judges certainly need such rules because they need to know whether to convict someone when he saves the life of someone else using proportional force to prevent an unlawful, imminent attack on another person. Law currently stipulates no conviction is in order in such cases. Rightly so, I think.

Lastly, what stops one from bringing the ideal into the real? Desires that we dress up as "practical considerations". Desire is what stops us from applying principles consistently. One may apply them to feel good about oneself, until it conflicts with one's desires, and then one may seek for a pretense as to why that is acceptable. That is not ethics. That's doing whatever the hell one wants whenever it's convenient.

Sometimes one must (attempt to) build a tower, to rise above the mud. — Tzeentch

Well there might be so many things that stop us. However, making the best and enemy of the better seems to throw away the baby with the bathwater (no worries I am out of trite expressions ;;) ) Ethics is the search for principles, but the application of them is a question or practical wisdom. It is also required when one wants to build towers on muddy soil.

I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times. — Tzeentch

You confuse intersubjectivity with majority opinion. Not every vote counts in this forum as not everyone has the moral maturity or argumentative acumen to value and weigh the reasons set forth. You may not find it a good basis for ethics, but it is the only basis we got in a real world instead of an ideal one.

Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning. — Tzeentch

In that sense we do not have such fundamental truths. All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ethics is about the way we comport ourselves to that which is 'other'. Therefore it takes two to tango.

What context do you propose, then? Whenever our subjective judgement deems it desirable to commit violence? Whenever a lot of people agree it is desirable to commit violence? I find none of these particularly convincing. — Tzeentch

Whether the arguments that I propose for me committing violence are sound or not, meaning that they are understandable and plausible for others who have seen enough of such situations to be able to weigh them and imagine what they would do were they in my shoes. My outlook on ethics seems rather Aristotelian in that sense.

That does not mean I absolutely shun your preference for 'principles' in the sense that you like to use them. However they have to be applicable to the real world. Say you and I agree that 'violence is unethical', what can it mean? In your view it means that every use of violence is unethical. I find that unconvincing because I can citer many instances in which it seems that violence is not only the right thing to do, it seems even the necessary thing to do in such a situation. If we than say "ahhh but it is unethical!", then ethics simply becomes a system of restraint, kind of like the place of sin in religion.

What it means to say that 'violence is unethical' in a way that it can be informative and yet retain some of its context inependent quality is to say that "we should strive for a world without violence, because in an ideal world violence is not necessary". In that sense I would agree with you. In practice however we need rules to allow for violence when necessary. In a sense this ethical discussion mirrors he perennial problem of metaphysics how to cross over from the ideal into the real.

You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority. — NOS4A2

We have an intuition of right and wrong, we feel pleasure we feel pain. However, we will have to teach a child to share the things he gets with others, we teach kindness, we teach also how to punish in moderation. Both ethics and law are not learned by just being in the world. Which is good or I'd be out of a job.

I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention. — NOS4A2

Great, sure any amount of people can do it right, like the KKK, marvelous at determining what is right. angry mobs in general, such judge of character. Do tell, what innate wisdom has granted each individual man the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to meat out fair and just punishment? In my nick of the words, we feel that a law study and then an extra three year education is on order.

The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity. — NOS4A2

And who defines what justice is? Probably in your case the belove framers... why anyone would consider the word of 18th century well to do farmers as gospel is beyond me, anyway, different topic. Problem is that if the state likes to show it cares so much about human life and dignity, why does it act in flagrant and open contradiction of it? The state sends mixed signals. Categorically unethical that is ;) No, simply not warranted on whatever ethical maxim there is. There might be only one, the crudest one, the satisfaction of the brutish masses.

The issue is that in this example, one is using their own subjective judgement to determine what is merited. By doing so, one must also accept when another uses their subjective judgement to do the same, unless one wishes to argue their judgement is somehow more special than others.

What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history. — Tzeentch

No. I use my subjective judgment and I am prepared to defend it in front of an intersubjective forum of people who get to judge my actions and I provide reasons for it in full conviction that they will agree with me. It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. That is why the question is important that Proof would accept my reasoning or not for not saving him. (sorry 180 Proof you are under constant threat of death in my examples, fortunately it is only an example.) I use my judgment in the service of people (or other creatures) not ethical maxims.

What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history. — Tzeentch

No, what we see throughout history is the constant marginalisation of violence as a means to settle interpersonal conflict.

The point of an ethical principle is that it is context independent.

Like I said to ↪john27, if we need to ask why following ethical principles is even important at all, then this will not be very constructive. An ethical discussion presupposes they matter to us. — Tzeentch

Yes principles matter to us, but I disagree that ethical principles are or can be context independent. Principles are rules of thumb, accepted wisdom that holds true most of the time, but not all the time. They guide our courses of action, not prescribe them.

Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. I'm sure you will try to find grounds to disagree, and that is why we're here. — Tzeentch

Yes, but the disagreement lies not in challenging the notion that if there are categorical principles, than violence may be considered categorically unethical. I argue on the other hand that there are no context independen principles, or at least that context may require us to act not in accordance to a principle. Therefore it may be ethical to act in disregard of the principle that violence is unethical. i.e. to commit violence.

So the state responds by showing disregard for human life and dignity.... great.

I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. — NOS4A2

Under what principle, context dependent or otherwise would the death penalty be justified?

↪Tobias If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right". — Tzeentch

Yes, but that is a big if. I do not think that violence can turn into a rigt whenever it suits me or my whims. My desire must be one that itself aims at the greater good. Is that hard to establish? Yes sure. That is why I would answer negative to John's latter question, is violence ethical when it is used to steer a society in a good direction. However not all situations have that degree of difficulty. the weighing of interests between Proof's life and John's broken nose is a pretty easy one to make. (provided that proof is not threatening to blow up a city or whatever). Why should I refrain from making this calculation and acting accordingly, in the name of some kind of pie in the sky context independent ethical maxim?

No, but my wrong was the right thing to do. That might make it a right.

I imagine how this conversation would go. "Sorry Proof, I have to let John slit your throat from ear to ear... I could nog John in the face I could, would knock him out cold, but that would be kinda unethical, I am sure you would understand right, being a long term member of PF and all"

You think 180 Proof would understand my reasoning?

Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable it does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is.

Even in the case of self-defense, its use must not be regarded as a victory, but as a personal defeat. — Tzeentch

What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action?

No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? — john27

Ahhh, see that is a different question and will indeed beget different answers. None of mine yet as I have to get back to work.

I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal, and sometimes justifiable not necessarily ethical. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical? — john27

Same answer. When your threaten to slit Proof's' throat from ear to ear with the flick knife you are wielding and I punch you in the face disarming you, then my 'act of control' amounts to inflicting injury aka violence, maybe even public violence if this were to happen in the street. Is this justified? Legally it is. (I know of no legal system which would convict in this case). Is it ethical? I think saving Proof''s life is an ethical action. hitting you might be unethical in normal circumstances but it was the appropriate means to a right end. In my book this would be a form of ethical violence.

How could we complete/reform the question? — john27

Well first I think you need an indication beyond yes and no. Is violence always ethical, sometimes ethical, never ethical, now it becomes a yes or no question as if there are two flavours possible, yes violence is ethical, no it is not. Whereas here I think midddle grounds are possible. I think the responses would also be batter if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" The problem here is that people will jsut tell you there own observations but as you yourself pointed out already, many meanings are still unclear, for instance the difference between justifiable and ethical.

s justifiable and ethical the same thing? — john27

Well justifiable is a legal term, so when violence is justified depends on the system of law. Whether violence is ethical depends on what ethical theory one follows. "is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. This depends on one's system of ethics. A utilitarian might for instance argue in favour of torturing a terrorist in case of a ticking time bomb scenario, whereas a Kantian would argue against.

I tend to take a rather casuistic approach in such matters, because I do not believe in context independent ethical systems and generally take recourse to law, a field that has more experience in casustic conflict resolution than ethics. Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Well in general it is not, it hurts people. Generally it is not nice to hurt people. It can be ethical, when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.

There is no way we could keep the mass of humanity alive, that fills the earth today, without technology. We would not have growing populations of long-lived people without technology. We could not have the economies that enable us to provide a decent standard of living for so many people without technology.
However, technology is not science, and technology without wisdom can destroy life on this planet.
We need more than education for technology. We need a classical/liberal education as well so we have the wisdom to use our technology well. If we can achieve this before it is too late is questionable. This is going to be a tight horse race and either we will enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny, or we won't. It depends on how well the masses are educated. With the media we have today, there is no excuse for doing as poorly as we have done. — Athena

It is a funny thing. Athena is also my favorite Greek goddess and if I will ever have a daughter I will lobby to give her the name Athena. I do see the value in a good classical education which I too have enjoyed. Therefore, I am not attacking democracy or enlightenment values. I look at these things from a sociological perspective, which type of society do I see emerging and what lines of argument do I see 'winning' in the argumentative arena. In your OP you called for a more ecological worldview, at least it seemed to me and you used arguments which you seemed to hint at argument which you also see (rather crude) environmentalists make. "Our technology is upsetting the natural balance of life and in order to avert destruction we have to use technology differently, namely in the service of the environment and restore the balance with nature that was present in the past". I do not know if you were going along that path, but it seemed like it.

You do argue in a similar vein as they do. They of course have the best intentions with this world, as you undoubtedly also do. The problem is that they often use terms that remain vague or obscure. For instance 'wisdom'. sure, we need wisdom, what can be wrong with that? But what does it mean in this context? You say science is not technology, but they are often intertwined. The vaccine against corona is a cooperation between the science of biology and the technology to use this science in an applied way. One is not seperable from the other. Education is another term you keep vague. Yes, a liberal education, but what will be in it? Will we tell the tale of how we managed to increase longevity eradicate hunger and poverty from large sections of the world, or will we tell the tael of ecological degradation, nuclear warheads and the eradication of cultures and biodiversity?

My warning to you is, maybe you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want democracy and humanist values and you complain that we have now 'become like Hitler Germany', but especially the manichean battle against chaos you mention was a trope for Hitler Germany. The relationship between National socialist thought and green thought is far from clear. You equate national socialism with blind technology, but especially that is what a thinker like Martin Heidegger characerized the US in the 1930s of. In Hitler Germany he saw a 'third way', a rejuvenation, against technology! If anything Hitler Germany was not anti-Green. So the problem is, even though you want the good for the world and you think your points are helping it come about, you might end up with something that is not so amenable to democracy and enlightenment at all.