The point is, that no one can truthfully say both, that (a) is a false belief, and that (b) being a conclusion derived from the false belief (a), is justified. To say both, that (a) is false, and that (b) is justified requires that one lie. Either the person doesn't really believe that (a) is false, or the person doesn't really believe that (b) is justified. In other words, Gettier is lying when he says b is justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Someone uses that belief to justify their belief in something else, therefore it's a justification. It's a bad one, yes, and the belief is not well justified, but it is, technically speaking, justified.

No it proves that women were not considered fully human. — charleton

You know that's not what was meant by what was written.

Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews? — Samuel Lacrampe

It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation.

the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethics — Samuel Lacrampe

Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated.

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain.

As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery". — Samuel Lacrampe

I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized.

I mean, does he know all the influencing factors and the exact number of possible outcomes? — creativesoul

He doesn't need to. Estimates can be made perfectly well, and are done on a daily basis. For example, in that example, is it not valid to say that the probability of that person's name being whatever-it-was is about 99-100%?

What's false knowledge? Knowledge has to be true, does it not? — creativesoul

Why?

You know the Earth is round, right? There are also people who claim to know it's flat. Someone's knowledge must be false, and unless both are called knowledge, we can call nothing knowledge except things that are known with absolute certainty.

You should've read the rest of that statement. — creativesoul

I did, but I only responded to that part. Having a reasoning for your opinion doesn't give you a right to make ad hominems against the people who disagree with you. Furthermore, you only made the claim there that knowledge can't be based on something one didn't believe, but offered no reasoning for that.

for in both cases Q is true as a result of something that S didn't believe. — creativesoul

One can be certain of X when X is false. — creativesoul

Depends on how strictly certainty is defined. In colloquial sense you are right, but strictly speaking certain information is information that can't be false by definition. Because only one such fact exists, it's understandable that outside philosophical discussion certainty can refer to information that is extremely unlikely to be false.

It was false, but well grounded(justified) belief none-the-less. — creativesoul

Justified enough to claim that they knew they were in danger. Not well justified enough so that they could objectively claim to know that their knowledge was true.

To say that the second case is justified belief simply because it would've been true, is to ignore the reasoning(justification) aspect and focus upon the truth aspect. — creativesoul

You're claiming that the second case would've been knowledge, but not the first one. The only difference is that the second one turned out, by sheer luck, to be true. That makes knowledge, by JTB, nothing but a lucky guess.

I can believe that 'X' is true, while knowing that I do not have good reason for believing it. Thus, I can sincerely say that one can believe 'X' even when they knowingly do not have good reason for it. — creativesoul

I agree, what is this a response to?

Requiring certainty for good justification seems unreasonable. — Michael

But the possibilities exist. You have a justified belief, although the justification is a bad one, so you know her name, but the knowledge might be false.

Yes. Otherwise there exists a possibility that it's false knowledge.

I got an error message or something saying my comment has been queued for moderation or something which I haven't seen before. I'm not banned or anything, am I?

I'm using justified as a synonym for well justified because that's what is meant by justified (badly justified is an oxymoron and makes that condition for knowledge meaningless). Also because it's easier to type just justified.

However, no reasonable person would claim that S knows Q — creativesoul

Hey, no ad hominems here.

Gettier offers examples where S is justified in believing P — creativesoul

No he's not. There is only enough information to make justified statements about probabilities.

There are two formulations underwriting the essay. Unless those are satisfactorily addressed and dealt with, you're aiming at the wrong target. — creativesoul

Are you claiming my addressing of them wasn't satisfactory enough? How so?

My point was that 'revenge', once clearly defined, cannot be just, while at the same time immoral. — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes, starting with your claim as a premise. Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals.

the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition. — Samuel Lacrampe

Accepting something based on rational reasoning dodsn't make it your will.

What if you were on the bad end of that unequal happiness situation? — Samuel Lacrampe

I'd think about the situation objectively and try to not be selfish, and accept my situation as a just sacrifice for a greater good.

Ever read Gettier's paper? Why look at the OP if it misrepresents Gettier's written words? Strong indeed. — creativesoul

How is that a misrepresentation? Up until the point where I claim the person has the knowledge, I'm arriving at the same conclusions as you were in your comment.

Can a man really know what it feels like to be a woman? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Well, can a woman? How can a man know what it feels like for the other men to feel like a man?

How am I the one that was not making sense? What was "I did" supposed to be a sensible thing to respond to in that context?

If by 'revenge' you mean "a desire for justice (and nothing beyond it)", then it is not immoral. — Samuel Lacrampe

Circular reasoning.

To impose your desires on others against their will results in unequal treatment. — Samuel Lacrampe

How? How is imposing everyone's desires on everyone against their will not equal?

if the predicted gain was equal in both options — Samuel Lacrampe

if you only help the one person, their gain from the help is greater than the combined gain of the multiple people? — BlueBanana

So equal misery is better than unequal happiness?

Day One: All men are equal
Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too. — charleton

This only proves the words describing the idea have changed, not the meaning or the idea behind them.

I did - in the sentence after the one you quoted. — Harry Hindu

Read that part of this discussion again.

Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are. — Maw

Sources? Are you talking about mean or median?

Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight. — Harry Hindu

Um... thanks for repeating?

Whether or not humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore is a point of contention for another thread. — Harry Hindu

No it's not if you bring it up to back up your point. You can't make a claim and then claim I'm off-topic and should make a new thread when I refute it.

why not? what else are we? Super-natural? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is technology supernatural?

if they aren't independent events that implies they are causally related then? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Sharks aren't ice cream trucks in disguises. That's a possible explanation, and the gender roles as social constructions are another one.

Probably because when we look at sex and gender as random events in probabilistic maths we see they aren't independent events.

I was talking about anorexia. — Harry Hindu

So was I. One can't be an obese anorexic. Anorexia is partly defined by whether one is obese.

He never made that distinction. — Harry Hindu

So why assume he was talking about etnicity?

In the natural world one's behavior is determined by one's sex. — Harry Hindu

And humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore. We have sociocultural structures. We have the mental capacity to think objectively about ourselves and understand abstract ideas and describe them linguistically.

How does a man even know what it is like to feel like a woman to say that they are actually a woman in a man's body, and vice versa? — Harry Hindu

Just a guess but they probably don't know for sure that they are feeling about it the exact same way. Like when you're a part of any subculture, you don't know everyone else in that group is feeling the same way about their identity within that group, but you srill know you identify with that sjbculture and feel like you're a part of it.

This question is still separate from your original, which doubted that one chooses their gender. Choosing their gender and why they choose their gender are two different things. — Buxtebuddha

So why am I not allowed to ask different questions?

I dont think i understand your point here. Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral? — The Devils Disciple

So how do you define morality? What does it mean if not the way it is generally understood?

You sound dangerously like this discussion is going to a rather transphobic direction, but anyway:

Can't people be wrong in identifying themselves? — Harry Hindu

Sure they can, but my point is that those feelings of feeling like a woman would've existed in their subconsciousness.

I gave the example of the Italian-American believing that he was a Native American. Does their belief make them what they are, or does your physical relationship (his genetic relationship with his family) with others make you what you are? — Harry Hindu

I don't think his claim was that he was ethnically a native american, but just culturally.

How is this any different from someone that believes that they are a woman in a man's body? — Harry Hindu

Whether one is obese is determined by physical facts, gender is not.

What does it even mean to feel like a woman in a man's body? Are they saying that their soul is female and they are in a male body? Are we talking about souls being placed in the wrong body, a mental illness, or what? — Harry Hindu

It's about the sociocultural gender roles, or one's inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a certain set of them even if one doesn't make the conscious decision to express those desires.

but she still had to make the choice and a very serious commitment to make this realization possible... — Cavacava

No, she had to make a very serious commitment to make her practical applications and expressions of her identity possible. She can make the decision only about the gender roles she'll assume. If she'd chosen otherwise, to tell herself the lie that she was a man, it'd've still been a lie because her true feelings wouldn't have been changed.

Exactly. She decided to go through the transition because she felt like that was who she was, not because she decided to feel like a woman.

The transition isn't what defines her gender, it's not what makes her a female person. Those are defined by her self-identity, by who she feels she is. She can make the conscious decision to express her gender through the transition, but not about her feelings.

Ok, explain your thoughts. Gender is a decision, and not a compulsion, but you say it's like a compulsion. If it's not a compulsion but a decision, how is it like a compulsion?

No, that really was a terrible metaphor.

If gender can be chosen through a conscious decision, why do transgender people choose to be the gender they are, even though that leads to them being discriminated (among other cons)?

The only sense of gender that can't be chosen is the one you are born with. — Cavacava

So why do you choose your gender to be whatever it is?

Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal. — The Devils Disciple

And it's still acceptable to own slaves and murder is still right as long as you do it while invading another country in the name of your religion and being a part of any sexual minority is still morally wrong. Yes, no changes at all.

And now that I think about it, even rape isn't universally wrong even today, not to even mention historically.

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. — The Devils Disciple

It doesn't.

That's a new interpretation to me. According to this view, would lying to a murderer to save the victim then be considered moral because of the circumstances? Kant rejected this in Kritik der praktischen Vernunft.

It is, but I'm asking it anyway.

So why do you identify as whatever gender you identify as?

If your opinion can't be changed, then are you here just to hear yourself talk? — Hanover

Opinions can be changed, but a person can't just decide to change their own opinion.

Are you claiming people choose all of their subjective opinions and views? Or just gender? Is what you're saying that you could right now choose to be the opposite gender - not just act like that, claim to identify as that gender, take that social role, but actually believe that that is who you are? What about your subjective views on politics, can you just choose to believe in any extremist movements beliefs - and, again, not just that you could physically write their beliefs on your keyboard, but can you right now choose to truly believe in any extremists' claims?

Doesn't follow. Everything I listed is subjective. Self identity in general is subjective but you don't choose it.

Biological sex is objective, gender is subjective. — Buxtebuddha

I agree. An individual still can't make a decision out of their free will to change their gender, just like they can't change their sexuality for example, or opinion or feelings about anything.

You played yourself. Social roles can't be chosen, gender can't be chosen, no contradiction.

Wouldn't you agree that sex is biological and gender is sociocultural?

What? — Buxtebuddha

It's similar to personality. You can't make the decision to be someone else than you are = you can't change your gender.