To me, 'all men are fools' is the bigger insult, because it says that, being a man, I am definitely a fool. 'All fools are men' is fine, because I'm not one of them.

To me, 'all men are fools' is the bigger insult, because it says that, being a man, I am definitely a fool. 'All fools are men' is fine, because I'm not one of them — CasKev

Ok, but I'd like you to look at the problem as a man, a class, not as an individual.

I would answer the same. Being a fool is undesirable, even if every other person is a fool. Statement #2 is the only one that gives a man a chance of not being a fool.

Statement 1 is more insulting to men because it necessarily insults all men, whereas statement 2 does not.

I see.

But ''all fools are men'' say that the entire class of fools is included in the class of men. I don't know how to word this but what if I were to say ''all evil people are Americans''. This is not true but just assume for the sake of argument. Isn't ''all fools are men'' equally, if not more, insulting?

Why is this important, and how is it philosophy?

The whole binary set up of the statements is useless. Are you actually trying to understand something about the concept of someone being a fool, or are you just playing a game?

Well, I don't know where philosophy comes in. Perhaps its more about psychology, decision theory, morality.

Anyway...

1. All men are fools is insulting but men could derive some relief by knowing that there's the possibility of some non-men being fools too e.g women. This mitigating factor is inclusive, as in men are comforted by the possibility that others may be in a similar situation. Psychology?

2. All fools are men is also insulting because there's no fool who's not a man. Think of ''all terrorists are Muslims''. Here the mitigating element is the possibility that some men may not be fools. As you can see, here men are comforted in an exclusive sense i.e. the possibility of some men not being fools lessens the blow. Psychology?

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)?

Well, I don't know where philosophy comes in. Perhaps its more about psychology, decision theory, morality. — TheMadFool

Sorry if I was harsh; it's just that this is a philosophy forum, and I don't see what philosophical end this question serves. But there are other threads that I would say the same thing about, yours just touched a nerve. Apologies. I consider psychology and morality to be aspects of philosophy, so fair enough.

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)? — TheMadFool

Now, this goes back to my critique. Why does this matter? I don't see how any of this matters in the real world. Why does this question matter to you?

Now, this goes back to my critique. Why does this matter? I don't see how any of this matters in the real world. Why does this question matter to you — Noble Dust

Here's my problem.

To me, both statements are equally insulting. Statement 1 does it directly to ALL men (doesn't require the feeling of belonging or brotherhood but its presence will amplify the insult) and statement 2 does it indirectly to ALL men (requires the sentiment of belonging, brotherhood).

We can't decide, on these statements alone, which is a bigger insult.

That's why I delved into the moral implications of both statements. Statement 1 can be mitigated through inclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing there are others (women?) who're fools and statement 2 can be mitigated through exclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing that some men are not fools.

So, from a moral perspective, statement 1 is a bigger insult because a man's relief is obtained through including others in the same bad situation (foolishness).

As for statement 2, a man is comforted by excluding others from a bad situation (foolishness). This is much better because it's a good thought.

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)? — TheMadFool

Ok, so I totally misread this, and that's on me. Overworked, sleep-deprived, and slightly tipsy. You may call yourself the Mad Fool, but that's me, for the moment. Let me try again.

To be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you isn't inherently selfish or unselfish. It's selfish if you derive pleasure from bringing others down to your level of misery. But, it's unselfish if you find companionship through suffering that you perviously didn't have, if you were in a state of isolation. This could manifest as someone willingly offering you this companionship out of charity, or it could manifest as two isolated people finding companionship through a shared experience of suffering.

Likewise, to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in could go either way. It would be selfish to feel this way as a way to willingly isolate yourself; there's a masochistic tendency in some of us that derives pleasure form imagining that we're bearing a form of suffering that others are not; this is (psychologically) a need to achieve personhood (through imagined individuality; through the perceived idiosyncratic nature of our own suffering). What comes to mind is the "tortured artist". On the other hand, an unselfish experience of being "comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in" would be a desire that those who fall under your care, those you love, are not subjected to the unique sufferings that you yourself are experiencing. This is because love means, among other things, a desire for the well-being of the loved one. We do all we can to maintain that state of well-being for those we love, and we hope and trust that they reciprocate. We do this because we ultimately imagine our loved ones as having the potential to obtain a state of "true" happiness, which is a spiritual longing not to be overlooked. But this gets complicated; well-being presents itself as a lack of suffering, but there's an inner character to suffering, an esoteric character. Suffering can lead to enlightenment, as well as destruction. Is it really just to attempt to, or to find comfort in, the obstruction of the experience of suffering in others? I tend to take an extreme view; suffering is neutral. As I said, it can lead to enlightenment, or to destruction. Does the potential for destruction merit an attempt from an outside force to obstruct suffering? I think we should protect those we love form suffering at all costs, but we should gratefully accept the suffering that inevitably comes, despite our own futile devices. And why? Because that suffering that comes is inevitable. Wisdom lies in between; protecting our loved ones from suffering, and learning how to grow from the suffering that none the less comes our way.

So, to answer your question, I don't think one of the situations you pose is better than the other. Again, I think it's a false binary concept that doesn't apply to the real world.

See my further comment above.

slightly tipsy — Noble Dust

(Y) Drink but don't Drive.

Your analysis is too, let's say, poetic. It's good - makes sense but it's romantic - impractical. I learned something new though. Thanks for that.

Anyway...let's say I agree with you that the moral dimension of the two statements isn't as clear cut as I thought.

If so, we're back to square 1. Which is a bigger insult, 1 or 2? On what other factors does the decision hinge on?

Again, I think it's a false binary concept that doesn't apply to the real world. — Noble Dust

Moslems are faced with the accusation ''All terrorists are Moslems'' and women too face such accusations e.g. ''all women are whores''. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the vilification of Moslems and the objectification of women are real truths in this world of ours.

(Y) Drink but don't Drive. — TheMadFool

NYC, baby.

Your analysis is too, let's say, poetic. It's good - makes sense but it's romantic - impractical. — TheMadFool

How so?

Which is a bigger insult, 1 or 2? On what other factors does the decision hinge on? — TheMadFool

Why is the decision of which is a bigger insult something that anything should hinge on? What exactly is the hinge here?

Moslems are faced with the accusation ''All terrorists are Moslems'' and women too face such accusations e.g. ''all women are whores''. — TheMadFool

Are they/do they?

How so? — Noble Dust

If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible.

Why is the decision of which is a bigger insult something that anything should hinge on? What exactly is the hinge here — Noble Dust

Well, people seem to instinctively choose statement 1 as the bigger insult. This I've shown is a misconception. So, how do we break the deadlock? We can take it as a purely intellectual exercise or as I've shown, explore the question's moral, psychological, or other implications to make a decision.

Are they/do they? — Noble Dust

It seems like it. Why are moderate Moslems engaging in PR battle to restore the reputation of Islam and Moslems? Why do women dislike and speak out about men objectifying them?

I'm just looking at the problem from a perspective that has more to it than what appears prima facie.


Anyway...

How do we decide which is a bigger insult? You think moral analysis doesn't help. So, what's left?

I think the moral angle should work because I think the knife-cuts-both-ways argument of your is flawed. Your argument focuses on outliers and unique cases e.g. masochism and sadism. While I don't deny their existence, they're too rare to bear on the issue. Speaking in general terms, what good and bad, suffering and joy, etc. mean to most of us, I think my solution is not bad.

But ''all fools are men'' say that the entire class of fools is included in the class of men. I don't know how to word this but what if I were to say ''all evil people are Americans''. This is not true but just assume for the sake of argument. Isn't ''all fools are men'' equally, if not more, insulting? — TheMadFool

No, for the same reason as before.

If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. — TheMadFool

By both ways, then, you mean "poetic"? I can't find much in my post that was poetic other than "futile devices", and maybe "learning how to grow".

In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible. — TheMadFool

Are you saying paralysis ensues when writing or speaking gets poetic? I'm really confused here. I guess paralysis is ensuing...

In all seriousness, I'm against our Western insistence on microscopic definition. I think poetry says it better. We'll soon find that the search for exact metaphysical definition only leads to a sort of "metaquantum uncertainty".

Why are moderate Moslems engaging in PR battle to restore the reputation of Islam and Moslems? — TheMadFool

For the same reason that moderate Christians try to maintain the status quo of conservative Christianity? Really, the political blind spots in regards to Islam are getting annoying. But I was really just responding to the binary distinction you described initially in this context.

You think moral analysis doesn't help. — TheMadFool

Did I say that somewhere in my initial mis-reading of your comments? Because I definitely don't think that.

Your argument focuses on outliers and unique cases e.g. masochism and sadism. — TheMadFool

I didn't focus on that. My focus was specifically moral practicality.

We can't decide, on these statements alone, which is a bigger insult.
— TheMadFool

If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible. — TheMadFool

But that clearly isn't true in this case. One of my first thoughts after reading your opening post was that you should have added a poll. I think a lot of people would decide that the first statement is more insulting to men, for the simple and logical reason that it's the same insult, but applied to all men in one case, and not in the other.

Well, people seem to instinctively choose statement 1 as the bigger insult. This I've shown is a misconception. — TheMadFool

But you haven't.

Manhood used to be a character you matured into, noted by certain masculine characteristics, and often had to go through rites in order to acquire. It wasn't something just gifted to you biologically, or something that happened to you necessarily when you hit a certain age.

So that, I could interpret the first as saying that one is not a man until one becomes a fool. Men do need a sense of humor, I mean, we can't expect women to be funny...

But you haven't. — Sapientia

1)Do you feel insulted if I call you a fool?
Yes.

2)Do you feel insulted if I call your mother a fool?
Yes.

Which is a bigger insult?

Similarly...

A)All men are fools
This insults a man because he's a man and the statement asserts him to be a fool

B)All fools are men
This insults a man because the statement insults a fellow comrade, so to speak. Like insulting your family (see 2 above).

Can you tell me which is a bigger insult now?

How does one quantify the 'size' of insults? By how inclusive they are? By how divisive they are? By how emotionally aroused we become?

Part of the problem here is ambiguity in the meaning of the word 'men'.

Does 'men' refer to 'mankind', to humanity in general? Or does it refer to males specifically?

If we interpret 'men' in 'All men are fools' as referring to all human beings, then that one seems to be saying that all human beings are fools. Everyone is in the same boat, seemingly falling short of some perhaps unrealistic imaginary standard.

If we interpret it as saying all males are fools, then it would seem to be creating a fundamental value hierarchy within the class of humanity. I guess that I'd personally say that the 'men means males' interpretation of 'All men are fools' is the most insulting. It doesn't seem to leave any possibility of being a male and not being a fool.

"All fools are men' doesn't universalize over 'all men' as easily.

Interpreting 'man' to mean 'mankind', 'All fools are men' would seem to be saying that only humans have the capacity to be fools, not that all of them are. I don't think that's particularly insulting.

Even if we read 'men' to mean males, it's still possible that the vast majority of males aren't fools.

And if we preceded the sentence with something about genius and foolishness being closely related, then that might turn the whole thing on its head.

One could, of course, say that it's unfair to fools to call them all men.

Which is a bigger insult to men, statement 1 or statement 2? — TheMadFool

Statement one is a wider reaching insult. It insults more people. Statement two could arguably be an insult of greater magnitude, as if it applies to fewer people, the implication is that one must meet a higher level of foolishness to be qualified as a fool.

I guess paralysis is ensuing... — Noble Dust

:)

Sorry. There's truth in what you said. There are many sides to an issue. You were right in saying that my moral take on the issue doesn't provide a solution, at least not in the simplistic sense I had in mind.

However, I don't think I'm completely wrong about it. It is bad to derive any sort of satisfaction, no matter how small, from seeing others in a situation as bad as yours. Perhaps someone who knows psychology can dissect this attitude.

Also, it is good to be happy to see others are not in a situation as bad as yours.

Your take on this has been to say this isn't true - that the thoughts/sentiments I described above can be read in both ways - good and bad. Now, this view is only possible if you factor in things like masochism and sadism. If you want to do that, fine. However, this seems wrong to me - like ignoring the majority for the opinion of a fringe group.

So that, I could interpret the first as saying that one is not a man until one becomes a fool. — Wosret

Yes, a fine interpretation. (Y)

You raise a good point. How do we quantify insults? Here I appeal to the quantitative reasoning that differentiates ''dislike'' from ''despise'' or ''like'' from ''love''.

One could, of course, say that it's unfair to fools to call them all men. — StreetlightX

Yes, I know right.

To me, both statements insult ALL men.

''All men are fools'' insults ALL men directly. It's like calling your entire family foolish.

''All fools are men'' insults ALL men indirectly. It's like calling your mother a fool. It's an insult to the family.

Which is worse?

We can't decide because both statements insult ALL men - one directly and the other indirectly.

Ok, so you've already decided then? Strange to ask the question. If you want to decide which is worse, you need criteria to judge by. Then you test each instance against the criteria. So the question goes back to you. Worse by what standard? If you can answer that question clearly and specifically, then you can answer your own question.

1)Do you feel insulted if I call you a fool?
Yes.

2)Do you feel insulted if I call your mother a fool?
Yes.

Which is a bigger insult? — TheMadFool

How's that relevant? The former.

''All men are fools'' insults ALL men directly. It's like calling your entire family foolish.

''All fools are men'' insults ALL men indirectly. It's like calling your mother a fool. It's an insult to the family.

Which is worse?

We can't decide because both statements insult ALL men - one directly and the other indirectly. — TheMadFool

But surely you can see that you're wrong to keep saying that we can't decide, when some of us can and have.

Assuming good family relations and the same insult in both cases, I think that it's worse to insult the entire family, rather than a single member. (N.B. a distinction should be made, for the purpose of clarification, between what could be called insulting and taking offence, so as to avoid equivocation, such that it can be said that the family might take offence, even if only the mother was insulted).

Similarly, and under similar circumstances, it's more insulting to men to insult all men than to insult some men.

A)All men are fools
This insults a man because he's a man and the statement asserts him to be a fool

B)All fools are men
This insults a man because the statement insults a fellow comrade, so to speak. Like insulting your family (see 2 above).

Can you tell me which is a bigger insult now? — TheMadFool

But that's not contained in the premise. You're reading that into it. It isn't man vs. fellow comrade or family member - that's nonsense. It's simply "All men are fools" vs. "All fools are men", and I stand by my original answer.

I don't think that there's enough of a basis to infer a difference in quality or degree - it's the same insult, to be a fool - but there's enough of a basis to infer a difference in quantity, and that's what my conclusion is based on. It's more insulting to men when all men are insulted, and, contrary to what you say, only one statement insults all men. Only one statement is even about all men.

An insult? Is it?

To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another's pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise. — Thomas Gray

Now, this view is only possible if you factor in things like masochism and sadism — TheMadFool

No, I don't think so. What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. Like I said, not wanting to see others suffer as you've suffered stems from a desire to see the ones you love flourish, to see that their well-being is preserved. This is a deeply spiritual part of us. It's implications are wide as deep. But what it doesn't consider is the role that that very suffering plays in the very concepts of flourishing or well-being. Think of the archetypes of light and dark, yin and yang. I'm not prescribing anyone allow suffering that they could prevent; I'm trying to open up a more nuanced understanding of suffering and well-being.

I stand by my original answer. — Sapientia

Imagine yourself an American. Take the two statements below:

1. All Americans are pedophiles
2. All pedophiles are Americans

According to you, 1 is more insulting because it talks about ALL American.

What I'm saying is 2 is also about ALL Americans, although it's subtle and not captured by the logical structure of the statement. How did you feel, as an American, when your fellow citizen was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? It wasn't ALL Americans that were killed. Yet, ALL of America went to war. (Sorry to stoke painful memories here but I needed a good example.)

So, quantity fails to make the distinction which of the two, 1 or 2, is the bigger insult.