• JosephS
    108
    [This question disappeared for awhile and then it reappeared. Don't know why. A question was asked regarding the scope of rules I'm looking for -- purely legal? In as much as I can't come up with a decent example of social rules going very far (e.g. "shouldn't commit adultery -- it's ok, we're in an open marriage -- but my wife really hates her") and the fact that when we look to enforce the rules it ends up at some point calling the cops, my suspicion is that this will end up devolving to legal situations. If we consider the motives for bureaucrats to create a sinkhole of crafty rules and lawyers aiding and abetting, the rest of us who have to actually work for a living don't stand a chance of competing.]

    There is a tension between our expectation that we ought to be freely able to express ourselves and the desire to see people who support bad social movements to receive the karma they deserve. Our sense of fairness runs deep.

    So while we cherish our 1st Amendment privilege that prohibits the government from muzzling us in all but extreme cases, we're also apt to smile (ok. not you, but the rest of us) when the Nazi dude loses his job, because no one likes Nazis. Let him march but "words have consequences".

    And that's all well and good until we lose our job due to some "snowflake" who "can't handle facts" puts a video on facebook or twitter capturing us at our not-so-best.

    So we sue, because...it's just not fair. Or because we have a clause in our employment contract which protects our expression.

    In considering this tension between permission and prohibition, it appears the tension creates a demand for nested sets, defined by application of principles that alternate between permission and prohibition in the encapsulations.

    Consider an example where Bob, below, finds himself plinko'd down a cascade of principles that ends up with his termination.

    We have a series of concentric circles, [expressing a universe of 'committable actions'] from outermost in, reflecting the principles at issue

    Outer Circle. (Permission)
    Skokie Bob is permitted to march and chant his Nazi slogans due to the 1st Amendment.

    2nd Circle. (Prohibition)
    Bob's employer fires Bob claiming that Bob's actions impacts the brand and their right to association insulates them. The implication is that Bob can be prohibited from voicing public support for Nazis.

    3rd Circle. (Permission)
    Bob sues, claiming that the contractual agreement with his employee includes a clause that supports the free expression of the employee and restrains the company from firing on that basis. Bob says as long as his expression is legal, he can't be fired.

    4th Circle (Prohibition)
    The company's lawyers recognize the free expression clause but also point out the exception to the clause, the Nobody Likes Nazis clause that insulates the company actions taken against an employee whose expression supports the Nazi cause. Company wins.

    The 4th circle is kinda crap, but it is not without precedent. In the McAdams case against Marquette, news points out an exception to an academic expression clause, excluding conduct which ‘clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve’.
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/09/wisconsin-supreme-court-says-marquette-must-reinstate-professor-it-wanted-fire

    Also, note that in the outer circle, while the 1st Amendment doesn't itself insulate against employee action (unless he works for the government), it does protect Bob against muzzling by the state, so it works.

    A second example with gun rights:
    1. 2nd Amendment right prevents government infringing on our right to keep and bear arms (Permission).
    2. If you're a convicted felon, however, that right no longer protects you and your 2nd Amendment right may be curtailed (Prohibition).
    3. A felon, using a downed officers gun to protect the officer, may find the violation ignored at the discretion of the DA (Permission).
    https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-a-convicted-felon-picked-up-a-downed-officer-s-gun-to-defend-him-Would-his-act-of-service-outweigh-the-gun-crime-that-he-committed-while-helping-or-would-he-get-a-thank-you-now-turn-around-and

    To the question:
    How far does the rabbit hole go?

    In the mind of the island/lake switchback
    https://www.livescience.com/33679-world-largest-island-lake-island-lake-island-google-earth.html

    How many layers can be found in practice in permission/prohibition nested shells?

    Ground rules:
    1. Make it nominally realistic. Actual court cites would be best, but hypotheticals that don't insult our intelligence are ok.

    2. The application of the principles need to be legitimately restrictive. If I cry 'Fire' in a theater because I know there's a bomb and it's the fastest way to empty the theater, someone might plausibly(?) claim justification. But if the police investigate and find I was lying about the bomb, sure my permission suitably encapsulates a nested prohibition (I get arrested), but only because the permission due to save others lives was a lie.

    3. In thinking about this, I realize that this boils down to a line of arguments and counter arguments, each but the first, beginning "acknowledged, except that..."

    In looking to or imagining case law, let's make sure that we don't try to create artificial shells by taking legitimately applied principles and feather in switchbacks using concocted justifications. I don't have anything more concrete on this one, other than it might be easy to take a 4 shell approach (like the Bob example above) and make it 6 or 8 by insert a contrived switchback between 2 shells.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    1. Outer shell: God makes everything happen.
    2. Except in the case of Free Will given to man.
    3. Except free will was given to man by god.
    4. Except god can't create a problem he can't solve
    4.1. and the free will problem can't be solved.
    5. Except the free will problem can be solved by god, because he is all-powerful.
    6. Except the notion of being all-powerful can be shown to be self-contradictory.

    0000000000000000000000
    JosephS, does this fit the bill? I did not put it in a permission/ prohibition sense, only in the "except" sense. I hope it's acceptable what I wrote as a response to your appeal.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    1. Prohibition: Practicing torture by United States Citizens is illegal, and is considered to be immoral and below the dignity of a person who is a free and dignified citizen of the US of A.

    2. Permission: the US must show to those bastardly Arabs who it is really that calls the shots; so a select bunch of sadistical US citizens have been recruited to perpetually torture a number of Arab detainees in some island location outside the United States' own lands.

    3. Prohibition: a US president made a promise to end this unconscionable sadistical practice by dignified US citizens.

    4. Permission: the US president did not follow through with this promise, for some to me unknown reason.

    ---------------

    Again, this does not satisfy all the criteria you set up to be followed, JosephS, but it does satisfy some part of your criteria.
  • JosephS
    108
    1. Outer shell: God makes everything happen.
    2. Except in the case of Free Will given to man.
    3. Except free will was given to man by god.
    4. Except god can't create a problem he can't solve
    4.1. and the free will problem can't be solved.
    5. Except the free will problem can be solved by god, because he is all-powerful.
    6. Except the notion of being all-powerful can be shown to be self-contradictory.
    god must be atheist

    My interpretation of this argument is that it deals with the question whether man ever has free will. As such, it deals in an existential question. Is there ever an act, x, committed by a person y, that can be said to be free.

    We have a series of concentric circles, [expressing a universe of 'committable actions'] from outermost in, reflecting the principles at issueJosephS

    So 'a rock falls' will be in 1 but not in 2. 'A person kills a different person' falls into 2. I'm afraid it breaks down for me at that point. After 2, the form of argument regards all points in the subset covered by 2.

    "Acknowledged, except that..." is reflective of the expectation that any set of "committable actions" will be cleaved by the subsequent rule, leaving some outside of rule 3 and some inside rule 3.

    Let me know if I'm missing something here.
  • JosephS
    108
    1. Prohibition: Practicing torture by United States Citizens is illegal, and is considered to be immoral and below the dignity of a person who is a free and dignified citizen of the US of A.

    2. Permission: the US must show to those bastardly Arabs who it is really that calls the shots; so a select bunch of sadistical US citizens have been recruited to perpetually torture a number of Arab detainees in some island location outside the United States' own lands.

    3. Prohibition: a US president made a promise to end this unconscionable sadistical practice by dignified US citizens.

    4. Permission: the US president did not follow through with this promise, for some to me unknown reason.
    god must be atheist

    This one is more along the lines of what I've been considering, in that I posed it as a tension in the (human generated) system for and against human action.

    I interpret (1) in that any action of torture by person x, a representative of the US, is illegal in its jurisdiction.

    (2) then draws an exception for acts committed outside of the jurisdiction covered by non-military application of law (e.g. Guantanamo Bay). When a military officers commits an otherwise illegal offense here, it is permissible.

    (3) then draws a subset via a temporal line of distinction. Acts in 2 are reflective of acts prior to T-sub-0. Acts in 3 are those after T-sub-0.

    If more substance can be drawn around 4, perhaps a suit or some other situation (an imminent threat of nuclear attack where we have the guy who knows and Jack Bauer has to apply torture to get the info out of him) would work. In absence of that, it's simply a retraction of 3. Broken promises are a reflection of how the tension works in us, more than how it works in the system.

    You could make it 5 by wrapping it an outer shell of actions committable by the government against lawlessness defined by a principle of permission (e.g. sovereignty).

    Thanks.

    [Edit: I wonder if you could make it to 7 consider the general principles of the limitation on government power]

    [Edit2: On further reflection, could 4, along with 3, be posed as typical of idealism during campaigns that gives rise to pragmatism when in office, political reality, domestic realpolitik or some other common social rule of elections and politicians? 3 is never actually realized, so I may just be spitballing]
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Divorce.

    Christian divorce, in the sense of the Roman Catholic Church.

    1. Marriage is a sanctity, and it ought to last until the death of at least one of the two partners.
    2. Except when the pope approves annulment.
    3. and Except when there is no consummation of marriage.
    4. Except annulment can't be obtained for many otherwise reasonable causes (such as incompatibility).
    5. Except when annulment can't be obtained despite a great wish for it, the couple can divorce in civil court and potentially live in sin with a different partner (or with bunch of different partners, in sequence or concurrently with many)
    6. Except living in sin is an unforgivable sin,with grave consequences in the afterlife.
    7. Except when one does not mind selling his soul to the devil. for him to take the seller's soul captive for all eternity.
    8. Except in the case when the Lord, the Devil, Hell, etc. don't exist at all.
  • JosephS
    108
    Divorce.

    Christian divorce, in the sense of the Roman Catholic Church.

    1. Marriage is a sanctity, and it ought to last until the death of at least one of the two partners.
    2. Except when the pope approves annulment.
    3. and Except when there is no consummation of marriage.
    4. Except annulment can't be obtained for many otherwise reasonable causes (such as incompatibility).
    5. Except when annulment can't be obtained despite a great wish for it, the couple can divorce in civil court and potentially live in sin with a different partner (or with bunch of different partners, in sequence or concurrently with many)
    6. Except living in sin is an unforgivable sin,with grave consequences in the afterlife.
    7. Except when one does not mind selling his soul to the devil. for him to take the seller's soul captive for all eternity.
    8. Except in the case when the Lord, the Devil, Hell, etc. don't exist at all.
    god must be atheist

    I missed your reply to this thread as I was travelling.

    I'm trying to interpret this in the way I've been thinking about it as nested reversals.

    Outside of 1 (0) is:
    X is permitted to marry

    I interpret 1 as:
    X is prohibited divorce

    2 as:
    X is permitted divorce in cases of annulment (no children, false commitment, ...)

    3 as (I'm struggling here):
    X is prohibited divorce in cases of annulment where there is consummation of marriage.
    I'm struggling because I would think that this would also be excluded from 2.
    "cases of annulment where there is consummation of marriage" seems contradictory.

    If I look at it as a venn, the set of acts (3) is disjoint from the set of acts (2).

    I'm trying to understand 2 as potential causes for annulment where 3 would be a disqualifying act.

    And then 4 talks about prohibition:
    "4. Except annulment can't be obtained for many otherwise reasonable causes (such as incompatibility)."

    An alternative analysis is that 2 and 3 are intended not as nested but as joint condition for permission (one shell rather than 2). Now 4 (which is this analysis 3) is a prohibition, as expected.

    I'm going to stop there rather than deal in potential interpretation you didn't intend.

    If I'm missing something or am not applying the rules of the game fairly, let me know.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.