Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose? — Tzeentch

The individual was the first to impose, hence society.

Even if that were the case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Even if that were the case, — Tzeentch

It is the case. You asked, I answered.

two wrongs don't make a right. — Tzeentch

The second is not a wrong.

Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose? — Tzeentch

It's not matter of cardinal order. Unless you want to argue that limiting one's ability to trespass is an imposition. At which point we are using "impose" in an unnatural way in order to support some ideal or dogmatic sense of personal permanent right of way.

It's not matter of cardinal order. Unless you want to argue that limiting one's ability to trespass is an imposition. At which point we are using "impose" in an unnatural way in order to support some ideal or dogmatic sense of personal permanent right of way. — Cheshire

:100:

Unless you want to argue that limiting one's ability to trespass is an imposition. — Cheshire

Depending on the situation it sure can be.

It's not matter of cardinal order. — Cheshire

It is what you are implying, by stating impositions are right in circumstance A, and wrong in circumstance B.

So again I'll ask:

What's the source of such a right? — Tzeentch

What's the source of such a right? — Tzeentch

Personally, I'm not sure. Some folks argue nature, others argue nurture. I hear a lot of philosophy has been haggling over that question for millennia. But if you take the cloths off it, and get down to the nut:

Regardless of source, "might" is the tool.

If you were a total bad ass and I was a total wimp, and you pushed me away from the fire and took my club, then that was the first imposition: individual on individual. It may be that, as a wimp, Darwinian evolution might say I had it coming. But I may wrangle the group with my superior rhetorical skills, call BS, and incite them to give you a beat-down. Hence society. Wolves, chimps and others have it too. The nature argument is that we are a social beast, a pack animal. As relatively hairless, toothless, clawless, bi-pedal pussies, we need to work together to survive.

What is the original source of the group's indignation toward your behavior? I don't know. But I side with the group and against you. I win.

Can the group go overboard? Hell yes. But can your fear of that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles be grounds for the group to cede power back to you, the individual? Hell no. Your rhetorical skills aren't that good. You aren't Hitler. The best you can hope for is a Bill of Rights (that we also find to spring from nature). And we will check ourselves in response to your propensity for transgression, or your actual transgressions.

If you want to argue about whether the severity of the response is right, or just, that is fine. But the responding is right, not another wrong. It is not, in and of itself, a so-called "transgression" just because your total bad ass ass has been given a beat down. Oh, and that beating serves as a lesson to other would-be initial transgressors.

Depending on the situation it sure can be. — Tzeentch

I think we'd have to settle this before making further progress. Where's the limit? At the extremes any perceived opposition to one's will becomes another's "imposition". Suppose I refuse to stand aside while you walk down the sidewalk. Has my mere persisting as a physical being managed to become an "imposition" by unnatural definition?

Suppose I refuse to stand aside while you walk down the sidewalk. — Cheshire

That is an imposition.

Has my mere persisting as a physical being managed to become an "imposition" .... — Cheshire

Yes, for it was not a mere persisting. The refusal implies to consciously attempt to deny.

At the extremes any perceived opposition to one's will becomes another's "imposition". — Cheshire

Whenever other individuals are made the subject of one's desires, impositions almost always follow.

Whenever one's desires are cast on other individuals, impositions almost always follow. — Tzeentch

So an individual's desire to not be imposed upon is itself an imposition when cast upon others?

If one lets it turn into one. Sure.

Yes, for it was not a mere persisting. The refusal implies to consciously attempt to deny. — Tzeentch

Excellent, so there is a differentiation. If the situation were the same but I don't see you or block your path by happenstance. Then, what would I call it?

Then, what would I call it? — Cheshire

I don't know. What would you call it?

If one lets it turn into one. Sure. — Tzeentch

Well then, I think we may have reached a point of agreement, at least in theory.

We could drill down on the subjective issue of "reasonableness" of the perception of imposition, and whether that is relative. Some might say that any imposition at all is unreasonable. Others, not so much.

Is standing your ground and refusing to move out of the way of someone walking down the sidewalk an imposition? Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition? Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground?

I'd like to get into whether society politely asking an individual to mask is akin to an oppressive beat down, or is that is a subjective and unreasonable perception of imposition? But that's another thread. Suffice it to say, I agree that an individual's desire to not be imposed upon can itself be an imposition when cast upon others who don't want to get sick.

I don't know. What would you call it? — Tzeentch

A Tzeentchian-imposition by principle?

Is it illegal to farm without advanced farming equipment? No. Something being inefficient doesn't make it illegal. — khaled

Not immediately. But as technology advances, so do the legal matters concerning the use of it.
For example in the EU, a registered dairy farmer must have a licence for milking cows, it's illegal for an unlicensed person to milk cows at a registered dairy farm.

Nowadays, one needs a qualification or other license for most jobs. Such a requirement for qualifications and licenses is incompatible with slavery (as it was practiced in the past).

I'm not convinced about this anger angle.
— baker

I would think those all fall within the domain of what we're talking about.

Did you take note of my first post in this thread?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528

The main topic isn't so much anger explicitly but simply intense emotion, and whether it has a place.

In that case, the topic is too general.

I doubt disgust/revulsion (same thing), strategizing, or plain disagreement could get someone to shoot someone else however. Have you ever shot someone for not showering?

Did you ever go to school? People revile eachother for all kinds of things.

I can't imagine someone who freely volunteers in a war without being angry at the enemy.

On the contrary. A considerable portion of armed forces (in countries where miltary service is voluntary) are people who joined the military because for them, that was the only way out of poverty. Some join military causes out of ideas of heroism, or even boredom (such as Lord Byron). After WWI some artists in Europe looked forward to a war, because they believed this would be a "big cleanse"; some even joined and realized too late how brutal an actual war is.

If enough people get angry with their bosses you get the French revolution.

The French Revolutionaries were not ordinary workers, they were the (upper) middle class (who looked down on the rabble).

I believe in order to go to a war you need to be angry. And that in order to try to change another's mind you need to be at least mildly annoyed. There is a difference between standing up for yourself and actively trying to change others' behavior. The latter requires some hostility.

I think those are popular beliefs, but I don't agree with them.

Like I said earlier, entitlement, compassion, grandeur, and some others can also motivate one to engage in open conflict with others or to change them.
Anger and hostility are very common, but hardly the only motivations.

No, not really.

Is standing your ground and refusing to move out of the way of someone walking down the sidewalk an imposition? — James Riley

Yes.

Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition? — James Riley

Yes.

Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground? — James Riley

Societies don't impose. Individuals in that society do. In many instances, it is the societal structure that gives those individuals the power to do so.

Yes.

Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition?
— James Riley

Yes.

Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground?
— James Riley

Societies don't impose. Individuals in that society do. In many instances, it is the societal structure that gives those individuals the power to do so. — Tzeentch

Okay, I'm seeing "life = conflict." Meh. Agreed.

Some time ago I researched the writing of screenplays and learned about conflict as a critical and necessary aspect of story. I wondered if it was possible to write one without conflict. It's not.

I'm resolved that the operative question is the one I raised about reasonableness of the perception of imposition. It's not that there there is no imposition. There is. Rather, is the perception of that imposition reasonable? There are whiners and there are those who roll with the punches of life. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. Courts generally default to the jury on a finding of reasonableness. So it's kind of a collective, social construct. I'm good with that. The "defendant" sometimes gets to choose judge or jury. So that's on him.

I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).

If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding). — I like sushi

You didn't consider my first post in this thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528

Why not?

I am saying 'anger'/annoyance' is certainly a way to combat fear, and I am also putting a bold foot forward and saying it is the only real way. — I like sushi

In the short term, probably. In the long term, it's education and strategizing.

Didn't think so.

You answered for me directly below. My was to do with the root of an ‘opinion’ so it doesn’t matter that one expresses it with ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ only that the point from which it was originally crafted was.

I view the use of force as categorically undesirable and immoral, and if I were ever to feel that the use of force is the only option, I would have to tread extremely carefully. — Tzeentch

No, I have no desire to impose anything on anyone. — Tzeentch

Would you let a psychotic killer kill you or a member of your family?

It is my suspicion that whatever "sometimes" entails is dictated by governments and by majority opinion of whatever society one happens to live in. — Tzeentch

What "sometimes" practically entails is different from what it should entail. Might makes what happens. Might doesn't make right.

Yes governments or even majorities can determine that Jews don't deserve to live. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics.

What makes one opinion better than the other? — Tzeentch

The data, for one. Of all the people that think they can drive fine while drunk, a majority are wrong. A majority of drunk drivers think they can drive fine but still run into accidents. Etc.

Also the simple fact that measurable deterioration in your performance exists when you're drunk.

I ask you that question. Do you think no opinion is better than another? That's self defeating.

In the short term, probably. — baker

What else could act out better in the short term? What alternatives weak/strong are there you can muster?

If you have a point to make, make it.

Would you let a psychotic killer kill you or a member of your family? — khaled

No. Like I said, there are situations where force is the only option, but even then I'd regard the use of it as immoral and as a personal failure.

What "sometimes" practically entails is different from what it should entail. Might makes what happens. Might doesn't make right.

Yes governments or even majorities can determine that Jews don't deserve to live. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. — khaled

Ok, so then we're back to the same question I asked ; if we have established that might cannot make right, then what determines what is right? What is the source?

The data, for one. — khaled

Data is often open to multiple interpretations. What determines which interpretation is the right one?

Of all the people that think they can drive fine while drunk, a majority are wrong. — khaled

Is that true? How many people drive while intoxicated and how many of those cause accidents? And apart from that, what justifies the use of force to impose on all drunk drivers, when only a part of them would go on to cause accidents?

Also the simple fact that measurable deterioration in your performance exists when you're drunk. — khaled

Sure, but where one draws the line is a subjective matter, and not every drunk driver is the same (and we're not testing all of them).

Do you think no opinion is better than another? — khaled

Opinions are all equally silly (including mine) and should never be a basis for the use of force.

Okay, I'm seeing "life = conflict." — James Riley

Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict.

I'm resolved that the operative question is the one I raised about reasonableness of the perception of imposition. It's not that there there is no imposition. There is. Rather, is the perception of that imposition reasonable? — James Riley

Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all.

Before we start, are you just the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks no objective truth is possible in anything? Just want to get that out of the way.

No. Like I said, there are situations where force is the only option, but even then I'd regard the use of it as immoral and as a personal failure. — Tzeentch

It cannot be immoral if it is the only option and you’re doing it reluctantly.

if we have established that might cannot make right, then what determines what is right? What is the source? — Tzeentch

Our moral intuitions.

Data is often open to multiple interpretations. What determines which interpretation is the right one? — Tzeentch

Statistical analysis, methods of sampling, etc. There are classes on that if you’re interested.

If I test 10000 people under controlled circumstances and find that 3 of them would NOT have deteriorated driving skills while drunk, it seems the interpretation that drinking deteriorates driving is much more likely than the interpretation that it doesn’t, and that it was simply coincidence.

Is that true? How many people drive while intoxicated and how many of those cause accidents? — Tzeentch

Yes though the experiment wasn’t done as I described (not that I know of). Because that’s not needed. We already know that drinking would impair driving from studying its effects elsewhere.

And apart from that, what justifies the use of force to impose on all drunk drivers, when only a part of them would go on to cause accidents? — Tzeentch

Because a formal system to distinguish people that are ok to drink and drive and people who aren’t will inevitably be abused leading to more people drunk driving and more accidents. It’s a practical limitation.

Sure, but where one draws the line is a subjective matter, and not every drunk driver is the same (and we're not testing all of them). — Tzeentch

False. There is a medical definition:“ Intoxication is the term used to describe any change in perception, mood, thinking processes and motor skills that results from the effect of a drug(s) on our central nervous system.”

So technically any alcohol consumption counts. But there are also accurate tests. There are field sobriety tests taught to cops, and there are medical tests that can detect if you’re intoxicated or not.

Opinions are all equally silly (including mine) and should never be a basis for the use of force. — Tzeentch

That’s a silly opinion, and so I have no reason to listen to it. (Self defeating as I said)

Before we start, are you just the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks no objective truth is possible in anything? — khaled

Considering everything you observe has to go through the subjective filter of your mind, it is a given that objective truth ("ultimate reality") is, and I'll put it cautiously, extremely difficult to access for humans.

It cannot be immoral if it is the only option. — khaled

Well, it's not really the only option, is it? Besides, one may wonder whether the choices one has made have lead them to a situation one is put in harms way of deranged individuals. There's a nice parallel with citizens and governments.

Our moral intuitions. — khaled

What happens when those intuitions conflict?

Statistical analysis, methods of sampling, etc. There are classes on that if you’re interested. — khaled

Results from these methods would not be open to different interpretations? I think they clearly are. Is there even any real discussion as to whether they are? It's one of the first thing I was taught in academics.

Yes though the experiment wasn’t done as I described (not that I know of). Because that’s not needed. — khaled

According to the subjective opinion of whom?

False. There is a medical definition:“ Intoxication is the term used to describe any change in perception, mood, thinking processes and motor skills that results from the effect of a drug(s) on our central nervous system.” — khaled

By that definition half the world is driving while intoxicated when they step in the car every morning after they've had a cup of coffee. It should be obvious that such definitions don't deal in anything objective. They are practical tools and not all that relevant for philosophical ends.

Because a formal system to distinguish people that are ok to drink and drive and people who aren’t will inevitably be abused leading to more people drunk driving and more accidents. It’s a practical limitation. — khaled

It's arbitrary, based on convenience. That's not a justification, which is what I asked for.

That’s a silly opinion, and so I have no reason to listen to it. — khaled

And yet, here you are.

Considering everything you observe has to go through the subjective filter of your mind, it is a given that objective truth ("ultimate reality") is, and I'll put it cautiously, extremely difficult to access for humans. — Tzeentch

"Objective" means "true for everyone". As in after passing the filter, everyone gets the same thing. That's not very difficult. Example: 2+2=4. When our filters are working properly that's the answer we get.

There is just something about 2+2=4 that transcends pure subjectivity. No one can really think 2+2=3 assuming we're using the same definitions and arithmetic. And if someone thinks so, they are quick to admit they were wrong after being shown the correct answer. That "thing" is objectivity.

For instance: Genociding a race is evil. That's like the "2+2=4" of ethics.

The claim is that there is also such an "objective morality" in the sense that there is a best answer that everyone would agree to provided the filters are working correctly.

The definition you use is "the thing in itself" by Kant. That's impossible to access yes. Also highly inconsequential.

Given this: Are you still the kind of ridiculous skeptic that thinks objective truth is impossible in everything? Is 2+2=4 not objectively true given an understanding of the operations and numbers ?

Well, it's not really the only option, is it? — Tzeentch

Your words not mine. It is certainly the best option sometimes. Objectively.

What happens when those intuitions conflict? — Tzeentch

I take this to mean you agree that the source of morality is moral intuitions yes?

Usually people fight, sadly. But even conflicting intuitions do not mean that there is no objective answer. The objective answer would be the one that satisfies the most intuitions.

Results from these methods would not be open to different interpretations? — Tzeentch

Not always very variable. In some instances it is clear. For instance: Being drunk makes you drive worse.

It's one of the first thing I was taught in academics. — Tzeentch

The second thing I was taught after that is not to then dismay at the impossibility of any objective answer. Sometimes there is an objective answer (true regardless of what we think).

There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. What you're doing is an example.

According to the subjective opinion of whom? — Tzeentch

Me and almost everyone else. But there are some scientists that think that "Intoxication (which deterioration in motor skills) leads to driving worse" is debatable. So here are a few studies:

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2014/607652/
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/63-78.htm

Do you actually believe that drinking doesn't affect driving ability?

It's arbitrary, based on convenience. That's not a justification, which is what I asked for. — Tzeentch

It's completely unjustified. It's a practical limitation. If we could effortlessly detect who can drive while intoxicated safely, and chose to still ban them from drinking while intoxicated, that would be wrong. It's unfair that such alcohol immune individuals are banned from drinking and driving. But it would be far more unfair to the innocent victims to create a system that would allow drinking and driving in some cases (as it will be abused).

It's the (much) lesser of two evils. I would think that counts as justification but apparently not.

That’s a silly opinion, and so I have no reason to listen to it.
— khaled

And yet, here you are. — Tzeentch

Yes, I'm arguing against the silly opinions not listening to them.