I disagree with everything you've written there, or at least find it all irrelevant to the question. I remain convinced that whether determinism or indeterminism is the case, that there is no sui generis will and that therefore no one is, in any purely rationally defensible sense, blameworthy or praiseworthy for their actions. Of course, people will continue to praise and blame if they cannot refrain from, or see no reason to refrain from, doing so.

On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that some individuals can deliberately cultivate their freedom from culturally acquired and genetically determined compulsions, but whether or not a particular individual is capable of this and the degree to which they are capable of it is down to what they are constitutionally equipped to be capable of. Blame is not pragmatically necessary but of course restraint is necessary in cases where individuals are a threat to others.

↪Joshs I disagree with everything you've written there, or at least find it all irrelevant to the question — Janus

You find it irrelevant to the question because you have paired down your definition of blame (strictly the product of sui generis will) so severely that most of the ways in which it is treated by contemporary psychologists and philosophers is off limits to the discussion.

No, I haven't pared down the concept of blame, but made a distinction between blame which can be rationally justified and blame which is merely affectively driven.

I say that blame is not any more rationally justifiable in cases where harm is caused by humans than it is in cases where harm is caused by other animals or natural events.

I say that blame is not any more rationally justifiable in cases where harm is caused by humans than it is in cases where harm is caused by other animals or natural events. — Janus

I happen to agree with you on that, but just to make sure we’re on the same page, do think that any of the following cognitive assessments can be rationally justified, and if so , which ones and on what rational basis?

the cool, non-emotional, rational desire for accountability , condemnation, contempt, righteous indignation, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, rude, careless, negligent, complacent, lazy, self-indulgent, malevolent, dishonest, narcissistic, malicious, perverse, inconsiderate, intentionally oppressive, anti-social, hypocritical, repressive or unfair, disrespectful, greedy.

Most philosophers find anger to be a rational assessment in certain situations. For instance, Robert Solomon argues that anger can be ‘right'. Striking his own balance between subjective relativism and objective rationalism, he says

“Anger, for example, is not just a burst of venom, and it is not as such sinful, nor is it necessarily a “negative” emotion. It can be “righteous,” and it can sometimes be right.”

Philosopher Jesse Prinz writes:

…we have strictures against killing innocent people; and we have strictures prescribing equal opportunity. These principles are grounded in reason and subject to rational debate. . But justice also requires passion. We don't coolly tabulate inequities—we feel outraged or indignant when they are discovered. Such angry feelings are essential; without anger, we would not be motivated to act....Rage can misdirect us when it comes unyoked from good reasoning, but together they are a potent pair. Reason is the rudder; rage propels us forward.

Existentialist philosopher John Russon offers:

“Anger can be unjustified, to be sure, and in that case it enacts a fundamentally distorted portrayal of the other. But anger can also be justified, and in that case it can be the only frame of mind in which the vicious and hateful reality of the other is truly recognized.”

The social constructionist Ken Gergen writes that anger has a valid role to play in social co-ordination “There are certain times and places in which anger is the most effective move in the dance.”

Eugene Gendlin, a phenomenological psychologist and philosopher allied with Heidegger, considers anger to be potentially adaptive. He says that one must attempt to reassess, reinterpret, elaborate the angering experience via felt awareness not in order to eliminate the feeling of anger but so that one's anger becomes

“fresh, expansive, active, constructive, and varies with changes in the situation”. “Anger may help handle the situation because it may make the other change or back away. Anger can also help the situation because it may break it entirely and thus give you new circumstances.” “ Anger is healthy, while resentment and hate are detrimental to the organism.“

Do you agree with any of these philosophers about the rational value of anger?

I happen to agree with you on that, but just to make sure we’re on the same page, do think that any of the following cognitive assessments can be rationally justified, and if so , which ones and on what rational basis? — Joshs

When I spoke of rational justification I was referring to "pure' rational justification, I think the examples you offered may be cases of practical rational justification. The difference is that practical rational justification does not issue from the nature of the thing as pure rational justification does, but from the nature of the effect the thing has, or the nature of the effect that holding the judgement has.

False. I went through this giving examples of both conceptually. You are just wrong. A person claiming bare that someone promised them something isn't even a legal consideration. It's a nothing. A nonsense. It isn't going to even get you listened to by the judiciary in any form, unless you have some evidence. Even that, usually, needs leave to be adduced. — AmadeusD

It depends on jurisdiction and on where and when it is uttered. If I interview a witness than him or her saying that something promised them something, is relevant. Of course the defense can argue it is somehow not recorded but I as a judge can take into account whether I find this witness credible or not.

If you can't prove it in court, it probably does. If there is literally no record of your marriage, you are not married. That's how a legal obligation works. If you're conflating moral obligations with legal ones, that's a bit rich. — AmadeusD

No, that is not how legal obligation works. You confuse obligations with rules of evidence. If I am married legally and the marriage is not legally dissolved I am simply married. Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled.

You could have stopped here, acknowledged you have defeated your own point, and moved on. But here we go... — AmadeusD

You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go...

Why you are mentioning ontological positions is beyond me so I'm just going to ignore that dumbass conclusion. — AmadeusD

It is indeed beyond you but that is not really my problem.

It literally renders them non-existent. If you have a false memory of making a promise, does it exist? No. You can't prove it. You have absolutely nothing but your memory to rely on. THe promise doesn't exist. Your apparent attachment to it does. — AmadeusD

No, it If I remembered making a promise but I did not make a promise, there is no promise. If I think I see a pink elephant but it is in fact a figment of my imagination, then it does not exist. However not because I cannot prove that there is no pink elephant but because there is no pink elephant. The same holds for promises.

Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias

Sorry to intrude myself in your debate, but since I am also a law graduate and I work for the land registry in Madrid, I think I can make some useful points:

As you previously stated, Tobias, it depends on the legislation we are taking into account, but since you and I live under the "umbrella" of the European Union, there is a basic principle: the company does not exist if it is not recorded. If the company is not recorded, it becomes irregular and the stakeholders respond with their goods and not with the company's goods. I mean, without a registration, the company lacks of "affectio societatis"

On marriage and its registration. It is interesting that you state that if the civil records get destroyed, the marriage remains.

Well, yes and no...

It is obvious that you still have some obligations to your spouse, but your marriage becomes "insufficient" as the legal codes of my country says. Specifically, the 61st of the Spanish Civil Code says: For the acknowledgment of the marriage it ought to be recorded in the civil registry.
If it is not registered, or you lack some certificate, you can lose some advantages. For example, in terms of taxes, it cannot be proven you are a family unit. In terms of perceiving a pension from the state, there could be problems of evidence that marriage existed, etc.
With the aim of preventing unfair results, the Civil Code provides basic rights and principles between spouses, but these are very basic.

So, more or less, your marriage remains, but it is insufficient. I would say it mainly exists between you and your spouse, not to the state, me (if I am a creditor) or the judges.

As you previously stated, Tobias, it depends on the legislation we are taking into account, but since you and I live under the "umbrella" of the European Union, there is a basic principle: the company does not exist if it is not recorded. If the company is not recorded, it becomes irregular and the stakeholders respond with their goods and not with the company's goods. I mean, without a registration, the company lacks of "affectio societatis" — javi2541997

I agree. The sale of a house in the Netherlands is also not complete until the asset is transferred and its transfer is recorded in the registry. There is sound wisdom is that, especially on a corporate level. People who are dealing with the company need to know on what kind of entity it can take regress. In order to minimize confusion the rule is that there is only a company when it is registered as such.

It is obvious that you still have some obligations to your spouse, but your marriage becomes "insufficient" as the legal codes of my country says. Specifically, the 61st of the Spanish Civil Code says: For the acknowledgment of the marriage it ought to be recorded in the civil registry.
If it is not registered, or you lack some certificate, you can lose some advantages. For example, in terms of taxes, it cannot be proven you are a family unit. In terms of perceiving a pension from the state, there could be problems of evidence that marriage existed, etc.
With the aim of preventing unfair results, the Civil Code provides basic rights and principles between spouses, but these are very basic. — javi2541997

I think under Dutch law a marriage also needs to be inscribed in the registry to enter into force. What I do not know is whether the marriage is dissolved when it is not anymore recorded because no such registry exists anymore. It might be, but I do not think so. Article 1:149 of the Dutch civil code mentions that a marriage can be dissolved on a number of grounds. These grounds are summed up limitatively which means that only those grounds have legal force. The eradication of a registry is not among them. Therefore I can only conclude that under Dutch law the marriage is not dissolved.

[url=http://]https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0002656&boek=1&titeldeel=9&afdeling=1&artikel=149[/url]

Of course there will be all kinds of problems with evidence. That is my point exactly. the points of evidence should be separated from the point of whether a marriage or some other promise of sorts exist or not. Of course the state might well demand proof of you being married and when no such proof can be given, the relevant institution may well treat the marriage as not having any force. That does not mean the marriage is gone though in any ontological sense. When I see my loved one after this horrendous catastrophe that destroyed all the registries, I will say "we are married". I will not say "I used to be married to you", and rightly so. The duties of the spouses to each other would still apply even though they are not enforceable in court due to issues of evidence. We still gave our word, we are married and the marriage is not dissolved, at least not under Dutch law as far as I can tell. (I am the first to admit though I am not very knowledgeable on family law).

Interestingly perhaps under Dutch law we know the figure of the 'natural obligation'. That is an obligation that cannot be enforced but is still there. The most prominent example of it is when a thief becomes the owner of a certain good due to the statute of limitation. Since he became owner the original owner cannot revindicate his or her property. Yet, the thief/owner is still under a natural obligation to return the good to the person he/ she stole it from. A lot of law simply serves to protect economic activity and trust in the system. It does not uphold ontological truths. I think that is where lots of the confusion lays.

Thank you.

That thank you has been sitting in drafts for six months. My apologies for not posting it earlier.

My apologies also for involving you in what has become a somewhat farcical discussion. The ideology of physicalism prevents some folk from seeing the reality of social constructs. A basic category mistake.

Good and interesting points, Tobias. Thanks for this friendly exchange. :smile:
I just wanted to share the perspective using the legislation of my country and I realised that the legislation of our nations has common legal principles thanks to the European framework.
Here the "existence" of the mortgage depends on its record in the land registry. Even when the guaranteed amount is paid, the cancelling of the registry is needed. Because one thing is extinguishing the loan by paying and the other the guarantee on the house.

Article 1:149 of the Dutch civil code mentions that a marriage can be dissolved on a number of grounds. These grounds are summed up limitatively which means that only those grounds have legal force. The eradication of a registry is not among them. Therefore I can only conclude that under Dutch law the marriage is not dissolved. — Tobias

It is not dissolved, yes. The marriage remains, and the spouses maintain basic obligations, as we noted before. Our legislation foresees two basic procedures to dissolve a marriage in the 85th article of the Civil Code: the death of one spouse and "divorce". The latter requires a lot of formalities or ceremonies. Public deeds, spouses consent, authorisation by a legal public worker like a Notary or Judge and then... its record in the civil registry to prove the date of dissolution. :sweat:

Interestingly perhaps under Dutch law we know the figure of the 'natural obligation'. That is an obligation that cannot be enforced but is still there. — Tobias

Yes, I am aware of the existence of natural obligations in Dutch civil law. Our jurists demand more framework over these obligations, because they are there, even though it cannot be forced. It is true that some articles in the book "Obligations and Agreements" contain, briefly, references to natural obligations. For example, the articles 1755 and 1756 say: Interest is not due unless it is stipulated. A borrower who has paid interest that is not stipulated may not charge it to the principal.

The most prominent example of it is when a thief becomes the owner of a certain good due to the statute of limitation. Since he became owner the original owner cannot revindicate his or her property. Yet, the thief/owner is still under a natural obligation to return the good to the person he/ she stole it from. — Tobias

I like it. It reminds me of the figure of proxies and agents. When the principal resolves the authorisation to act in his name, those have the natural obligation to return him the deed where the authorisation is.

No, that is not how legal obligation works. You confuse obligations with rules of evidence. If I am married legally and the marriage is not legally dissolved I am simply married — Tobias

No. This is a complete misunderstanding. If there is literally no evidence of hte marriage the law does not hold a position on it. It does not exist. It is not there to be spoken about (again, if you're conflating legal obligation and moral obligation, which you clearly are - that's fine, but wrong).

That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias

Yes. That's literally what it would mean. Although, you've used misleading terminology - there is no marriage to be annulled in that scenario. The same way if your bank loses its server, you have no money. You cannot claim that wealth, if it literally disappears from the register in which it exists.

You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go... — Tobias

Its not condescending. You are very wrong, and adamant about it. It's not easy to pretend that's a reasonable position to take.

It is indeed beyond you but that is not really my problem. — Tobias

It is if you wanted to make a point. You didn't. It was a red-herring.

No, it If I remembered making a promise but I did not make a promise, there is no promise. — Tobias

Ok, we're done here. Your inconsistency is becoming funny, and that's going to make me mean. ALmost every response you've made to the other two interlocutors instantiates my points and defeat your own. Wild.

Yes. That's literally what it would mean. — AmadeusD

No. The non existence of registries is not among the limititative grounds for annulment of marriages under Dutch law. Therefore the marriage is not annulled. Just you saying so does not make it so. Your point comes down to when something cannot be proven to have existed it never existed. That is why your extreme materialist position lapses into idealism, but well, that point was beyond you.

here is no marriage to be annulled in that scenario — AmadeusD

There is my GF and I were married on the 10 of the 12th, 1998. It has not been disbanded. I just have no means of proving it.

The same way if your bank loses its server, you have no money. — AmadeusD

That might be because the money stopped existing. The marriage did not stop existing. The wedding ring may well be lost in that catastrophe as well, but so what?

You are very wrong, and adamant about it — AmadeusD

Mirror mirror on the wall...

It's not easy to pretend that's a reasonable position to take. — AmadeusD

I am doing a helluva job so far.

Your inconsistency is becoming funny — AmadeusD

Your face is funny.

that's going to make me mean — AmadeusD

You are not mean, just a bully and a silly one.

Just you saying so does not make it so. — Tobias

Amadeus has been trying to work out the difference between an assertion and an argument for some time now.

Where did he do that? My claim is rather simple: when I make a promise to X to do Y, the promise is made. Now Amadeus seems to state that when the promise cannot be proven it is somehow not there. That is a bit of a big claim in the face of the undisputed fact that I made that promise. The onus is on Amadeus to show that somehow promises (or marriages) magically disappear when no proof for them can be given. Of course in a legal regime, at some point this may happen, for instance when it states that I have no given credible proof for our marriage. The court may rule that I am not and have not been married to X. Ok. That however, does not in any way mean that somehow when I said that I was married to X, I was actually lying. I was not. By definition we were married, as it is given in the facts of the case. The court has established the facts wrongly, based on of knowledge and on the rule of evidence.

I do not see any convincing point, but maybe you do. I gladly see it, so please tell me if you are willing...

- I was just making a joke. Amadeus often seems to be under the impression that, "His saying so makes it so."

But I will ask you a quick question:

Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias

What if the nuclear weapon wipes out the entire nation and the legal order. Would you still be legally married? Or would the legality of the marriage fall away and it become a purely natural marriage?

I disagree; blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise; it is based on a libertarian notion of free will which is entrenched in the western psyche — Janus

We get angry and blame when we believe we can get that person ‘unstuck’ — Joshs

I'd say Janus is clearly correct here, and the key is not some vague notion of libertarian free will, but rather his condition "that the person really could have done otherwise." Joshs needs to put "blame" in scare-quotes, for by 'blame' he seems to mean nothing more than negative conditioning. ...It is interesting that without free will the distinction between rebuking and gaslighting seems to collapse. Oh, and anger has a great deal to do with blame, but it is simply false to claim that we get angry when we think we can get a person unstuck. We get angry with someone when they have done something wrong, and our anger is supposed to motivate them to set it right. If someone is "stuck" but is not to blame for anything then we do not get angry with them.

I disagree; blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise; it is based on a libertarian notion of free will which is entrenched in the western psyche
— Janus

We get angry and blame when we believe we can get that person ‘unstuck’
— Joshs

I'd say Janus is clearly correct here, and the key is not some vague notion of libertarian free will, but rather his condition "that the person really could have done otherwise." Joshs needs to put "blame" in scare-quotes, for by 'blame' he seems to mean nothing more than negative conditioning — Leontiskos

No, the point I was making is that believers in reductive determinism like Sapolski are not some strange anomaly within the history of philosophy, deviating from both defenders of traditional free will and postmodernists like Derrida and Heidegger in denying that blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise. (Heidegger writes that Dasein is primordially guilty. “Existing, Da-sein is its ground, that is, in such a way that it under­stands itself in terms of possibilities and, thus understanding itself, is thrown being. But this means that, as a potentiality-of-being, it always stands in one possibility or another; it is constantly not other possibilities and has relinquished them in its existentiell project.”)

‘Could have done otherwise’ is alive and well in Sapolski, but is hidden within the way he understands natural cause. As far as the association of blame with negative conditioning, I have always sided with those within psychology and philosophy who have strongly critiqued behaviorist notions. For instance, my favorite psychologist, George Kelly, argues that what motivates behavior is not reinforcement of drives but the ability to make sense of one’s world by effectively anticipating events.

“In some respects validation in personal construct theory takes the place of reinforcement, although it is a construct of quite a different order, Validation is the relationship one senses between anticipation and realization, whereas in conventional theory reinforcement is a value property attributed to an event… When we place a construction of our own upon a situation, and then pursue its
implications to the point of expecting something to happen, we issue a little invitation to nature to intervene in our personal experience. Even when events are reconciled with a construction, we cannot be sure that they have proved it true. There are always other constructions, and there is the lurking likelihood that some of them will turn out to be better. The best we can ever do is project our anticipations with frank uncertainty and observe the outcomes in terms in which we have a bit more confidence. But neither anticipation nor outcome is ever a matter of absolute certainty from the dark in which we mortals crouch.

anger has a great deal to do with blame, but it is simply false to claim that we get angry when we think we can get a person unstuck. We get angry with someone when they have done something wrong, and our anger is supposed to motivate them to set it right. If someone is "stuck" but is not to blame for anything then we do not get angry with them. — Leontiskos

That was the point I was making. The other’s ‘stuckness’ only provokes our anger when it involves their deliberate, intentional choice to fall away from an intimacy of relationship with us, a falling away from trust, empathy, loyalty, etc.

No, the point I was making is that believers in reductive determinism like Sapolski are not some strange anomaly within the history of philosophy, — Joshs

No, but they are a significant minority.

That was the point I was making. The other’s ‘stuckness’ only provokes our anger when it involves their deliberate, intentional choice... — Joshs

Sure, but I am not sure that you are appreciating the relation of choice to free will. To deny the ability to do otherwise is to deny choice and fault, and the onus is on you to show how a deterministic paradigm could provide for the ability to do otherwise.

I was just making a joke. Amadeus often seems to be under the impression that, "His saying so makes it so." — Leontiskos

My apologies, I did not get it. We do share the same impression it does seem :)

What if the nuclear weapon wipes out the entire nation and the legal order. Would you still be legally married? Or would the legality of the marriage fall away and it become a purely natural marriage? — Leontiskos

Well, for me it is hard to think of a legal order to be wiped out in any material sense. The legal order is a good example of an immaterial concept, it is a web of relations, of habits and ideas accepted by the people in a community. Of course such a community could be wiped out, as you suggest, the nation is wiped out. Ok, let's look at the scenario. Bombs fell and we stumble over the rubble of our civilisation blindly and shell shocked. With some great coincidence you find your wife (or husband) back and she is a shell of her former self, hardly recognizing you. What would you say about how you know her and to tell her who you are? I think you would say "we are married remember, you are my wife". You would not say "we used to be married, but the marriage is annulled because our civilisation has been destroyed.

But, you might object, my point is whether legally you are married. Well I would say in the circumstance that there is no legal order anymore, it does not matter. There is no 'legally married' anymore, there is married or not married, it is of no legal consequence. Yet I am right to claim I am married. There is also no instance that can annul the marriage and say I am wrong, because such an instance is only possible within a legal order. The question becomes meaningless to ask. I though, in that scenario, still hold that I am married and rightly so. There used to be a legal order and I am married in proper process.

The question becomes meaningful again if a new legal order is established. I hold that I am married and start to tell my story before the person or rudimentary institution which has somehow obtained competence. Probably, if my wife still does not recognize me and says she knows of no such thing, the 'court' would tell me I cannot prove my marriage and that clearly the other party does not know about her marriage. The court cannot establish the legal fact of my marriage and would probably state that we have never been married. From that moment on I may cry and tell my sad story, but legally my marriage is not there anymore. The court establishes the facts and established them without my marriage. That does not make the court right. It established the wrong state of affairs as fact. But alas that is how law works at times. I was right before the court, my wife was wrong. However, the rules of evidence were in the way.

You might think I am just playing with words here. I intent not to. What I take issue with is the idea that something only exist when there is a record of it. That according to me confuses evidence with existence. For me it is simply 'if a tree fell and no one heard it, did it make a sound' all over again.

g. The other’s ‘stuckness’ only provokes our anger when it involves their deliberate, intentional choice...
— Joshs

Sure, but I am not sure that you are appreciating the relation of choice to free will. To deny the ability to do otherwise is to deny choice and fault, and the onus is on you to show how a deterministic paradigm could provide for the ability to do otherwise. — Leontiskos

I’m all for free will. My claims about determinism weren’t an attempt to privilege them over freedom-based positions, but to show that they share a limitation with many such approaches. What most free will based perspectives have in common with deterministic ones is making fault and blame a necessary consequence of choice and freedom, the latter simply displacing the focal point of freedom to a ‘pre-subjective’ domain. I believe we are free, within the looose constraints set by our contingent schemes of understanding, to reconstrue the meaning of events. Determinations of culpability, fault and blame tend to prematurely end that process of re-interpretation and questioning.

I’m all for free will. My claims about determinism weren’t an attempt to privilege them over freedom-based positions, but to show that they share a limitation with many such approaches. — Joshs

Okay.

What most free will based perspectives have in common with deterministic ones is making fault and blame a necessary consequence of choice and freedom — Joshs

If you are saying that all incompatibilists agree that <If fault and blame exists, then free will exists>, then I agree. The hard determinist denies the consequent and the incompatibilist proponent of free will ("libertarian" if you like) affirms the antecedent.

I believe we are free, within the looose constraints set by our contingent schemes of understanding, to reconstrue the meaning of events. Determinations of culpability, fault and blame tend to prematurely end that process of re-interpretation and questioning. — Joshs

It seems to me that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For me the simpler point is that the consequence that incompatibilists agree on is true and important, as is its antecedent.

Edit: I was recently reading Stephen Brock on intention, so as I was traveling today I began to listen to an informal talk he gave on free will ("Is Free Will an Illusion?"). At the very beginning, starting at 1:48, he gives the exact argument that I had in mind regarding your own position.

No. The non existence of registries is not among the limititative grounds for annulment of marriages under Dutch law. — Tobias

I take it you're not reading these responses thoroughly:
If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with 'Dutch' law. This is fact of any legal matter. It would be the exact same scenario if you were (in the proper sense) never married, yet claim you were 'still' married. Same thing. It doesn't exist. Your cliam is simply your claim and is at the mercy of the legal proofs you can present.
A discussion about whether it did exist in 'our' scenario here gets further. Annulment is only relevant if you can make out the marriage to begin with. You can't. The scenario i've set up is exactly that. You pretending it's not is beyond me, at this stage.

There is my GF and I were married on the 10 of the 12th, 1998. It has not been disbanded. I just have no means of proving it. — Tobias

Then you cannot have it annulled. It's getting tedious, because this part here leads me to think you are trolling. If you cannot prove the marriage, you can't have it annulled or otherwise. It isn't there to be attended, at all, except in your mind. Which i already gave you. A lot of people allow this to suffice for their entire life. But they don't then pretend they are legally married, either. A legal marriage requires instruments of law. Wont be addressing this further unless you stop being dead wrong (or, you try it and provide me a judge's opinion which supports the idea that an assertion at law is as good as an instrument).

That might be because the money stopped existing. The marriage did not stop existing. The wedding ring may well be lost in that catastrophe as well, but so what? — Tobias

*sigh*.

You are not mean, just a bully and a silly one. — Tobias

This says quite a lot more than you wanted it to, I would think.

Now Amadeus seems to state that when the promise cannot be proven it is somehow not there. — Tobias

ONce again, conflating 'promise' with legal obligation. What is going on here, Tobias? Are you literally not reading the responses to your points, or what? Equivocating like this is extremely bad form and ensures we could never have a fruitful exchange. I would implore to not do this

I was actually lying. I was not — Tobias

No one claimed this. I didn't claim this. I claimed you would be wrong. You would be. It's become clear you're making arguments for me and then trying to beat them. Please dont.

By definition we were married, as it is given in the facts of the case. The court has established the facts wrongly, based on of knowledge and on the rule of evidence. — Tobias

Here is where "A discussion about whether it did exist in 'our' scenario here gets further" comes in. You've worded this equivocally. You're not currently married if that legal instrument no longer exists. But you can absolutely make the argument for the legal system to carry through your 'promise' into a new legal instrument. I have no idea why you're having trouble teasing these two things apart. I have not once at any stage tried to make the point that your mental state of believing you are married is either dishonest, or an act of some legal kind. It is delusional in the way i described earlier. It is incorrect. You were married and that fact no longer obtains, legally. You need to do the above to reestablish the legal marriage. There is simply no grey area here to be argued. I think you're still, despite my noting it gently several times, conflating a legal marriage and your attachment to your 'wife'. Not really my thing to do so.

If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. — AmadeusD

You keep saying that and it is at the core of this whole debate. It comes down to the maxim: "What cannot be shown to exist, does not exist". I think that claim is wrong. We do not require evidence for existence. If I promise my brother I will return a book to him I borrowed from him, I made that promise, no matter whether he can prove it in court or not. The problem is that such a view undermines the ethical dimension of promise because it leads to the view that promises have no moral force per se, but only if there is evidence for it. Most promises are made orally, without any witness and have, in your view, no claim to existence, allowing me a lot of leeway with such promises, because if they do not exist in the first place, I may disregard them. Because how can I be bound to something that does not exist?
This view is, in my opinion absurd, and rests on a mistaken conflation of existence with perception. Banno and others have also pointed it out to you but you keep holding on to it. Fine, but do not expect me to agree with what I consider to be absurd.

Enjoy your day and kind regards,
Tobi

(Edit: I find the way you write offensive, facetious and displaying an arrogance which is I think both unnecessary and baseless. Therefore, from now on, I will keep any an all interaction with you to a bare minimum).