I just thought the debate would interest you, that is the only reason I mentioned you. It is rather pointless to discuss with someone who misconstrues your arguments seemingly on purpose.

Yes, it is toying with the ambivalence of 'is'... 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication. I always sucked at formal logic ;)

Thanks InPizotl, makes a lot of sense. It depends on the Ayes Bees and Seas being defined as substances or properties, right. Thanks!

Why not A? Seas and Bees are equivalent at least in their aspect of all seas being bees. If all seas are Bees and if some ayes are bees as well than some ayes must also be seas since they are equivalent to bees.

What's your point? What is the inconsistency or claim you find in Kant that disqualifies him as an ethicist? What mistake has he made? That is, that can be presented in something less than 29 pages of tying complicated knots. He des not tell people what to do; he tells them what they ought to do and why within the limits of his arguments. And how often have I read some citation that claims to undermine or throw over Kant, only to find the writer very likely has not even read his Kant, or not understood him on the points in question, or the one citing has in some way failed. — tim wood

I think we are talking past each other. I am not finding inconsistency in Kant and would never be so bold and so foolish as to disqualify him as an ethicist. I do not think your beef is with me actually. I am not a Kantian, but I greatly admire him and his ethical system and think that the main thrust of it, at least what I consider the main thrust, 'think for yourself, not for others and respect them as autonomous and free agents' is nothing short of brilliant.

Having a thought is a violation of someone else's autonomy? — Tzeentch

No, your decision not to answr is. Not answering is not a thought it is an act. You are intentionally misreading me.

Well, I am interested in your opinion. If I wanted to know Kant's, I'd read Kant. — Tzeentch

Kant's opinion is relevant in a thread about Kant.

Apparently Kant views himself as the all-benevolent person who ought to go about assigning people their moral duties. What do you think of this? I think it is profoundly silly. — Tzeentch

No, you do actually, because you apparently you think that ethics is independent from the expectations of others, dependent on the social good in the case of lying, but independent of the social good in case of violence... apparently there is some Tzeentch who determines the nature of ethics, like I pointed out in the earlier thread.

Kant thought we could rationally understand our duties or at least the grounds from which they sprang. He called that 'the moral law within'. It is not Kant that tells you, it is reason, at least according to Kant.

That last thread was not about lying. It was about violence. We may have discussed Kant's ideas of lying, but only insofar as it was relevant to violence. — Tzeentch

So in case of violence we have a context independent ethical ethical system and in case of lying we do not. Thank you, much more consistent now.

Other people's expectations do not change the nature of things, — Tzeentch

Well, that rather depend on the ' thing' under discussion doesn't it? When you grab someone's hand and start to pump it up and down it is helpful when the other person expects this behavior and understands it as a greeting. That is by no means self evident though, but a product of social expectations.

I don't see how they're all that different for the person who walks past. — Tzeentch

the situation is different because in the situation you have been asked a question you have ignored someone whereas in the situation you have not been asked a question you have not ignored someone. Indeed also ignoring or not ignoring are socially determined behaviors / situations. However I see now that the mere existence of social world has been so far a mystery to you.

Should I go about having expectations and desires towards other people, and then derive all sorts of moral rights to have those things reciprocated? Or is this the moment we need to start appointing people with opinions on "what is reasonable", and we are back in the mud? — Tzeentch

I am not saying the father has a moral right to your answer, you determine whether you answer or not. The only point I am making is that not answering is an act as well and so does not absolve you from the dilemma of whether you have to tell the truth or not. You are just trying to wiggle out of that question by shifting the subject. I am not arguing for any rights on someone whether it is a right not to be ignored or a right to hear the truth.

I don't credit lawmakers with having a particularly solid grasp on the nature of things, and morality by extention. — Tzeentch

Well, this assertion merely proves your utter disregard for decades of learning. Your phrase ' the nature of things' is unintelligible. I can therefore not comment on whether they have a grasp on 'the nature of things' as I fail to understand what that may mean. I do know your phrase displays unjustified contempt.

Cite? The ideas of one right answer is naive. In some cases there might well be one right answer, but certainly not always. — tim wood

Here is an article on the matter. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30317932.pdf However, I easily concede there might be different ways to view it.

The question of a theoretical right answer is not that naive, it may well be necessary. The problem of a categorical imperative is that it is well categorical, applicable in all cases. The question is if there is theoretically speaking a best solution. It might be we cannot find it, but I think in a Kantian structure there has to be one. Actually also in law this claim is sometimes made as per Ronald Dworkin's discussion of 'Judge Hercules'.

But unbeknownst to you, the victim went out your back door and went home, and you have in effect killed him! Kant argues that with your lie, you make yourself part of the problem, and thus take on a share of responsibility and liability that the truth or silence would not have imposed. — tim wood

Yes, I know that is Kant's answer to the problem.

Kant is concerned with the pure formulations of duty, understanding that between the rule and its application could be considerable slip twixt cup and lip.

As to what to do in the case of conflict, in his Metaphysics of Morals he is explicit. If CIs conflict, then the better rules and the lesser falls away - there being then no conflict. From Mww again,
The law holds only for the maxims, not for definite actions.
— Mww
Wisdom that "might be engraven on a Queen Anne's farthing.., which necessitates a vast volume of commentaries to expound it" (Melville). — tim wood

Yes.... but is this contrary to what I said, or just an addition / clarification? I believe Kant himself refused to accept conflicts of duties always claiming there is one right answer.

That's not a violation of someone's autonomy. Whether one decides to answer or not isn't a matter of someone else's autonomy, but of one's own! — Tzeentch

Yes but you decide by assuming he does not want to have the answer. That is the violation of autonomy not your not answering per se.

And that duty is one you have taken upon yourself, or do you also impose it on others? — Tzeentch

It is imposed on others via the categorical imperative (at least according to Kant).

I am not a Kantian at all. — Tzeentch

Ok. I belief you like to decide the moral order solely for yourself and do whatever suits you. That is fine.

They're two entirely different discussions. — Tzeentch

Well either ethics is context dependent and then it matters that there are different discussions, or it is not and then it really does not matter what the case at hand is. In the other thread you answered it was not, lying was always wrong.

One is not entitled to my response, my time, attention or even basic politeness, just because they asked a question. What gives one the right to impose any of these things? — Tzeentch

I am not saying anyone is entitled to your response, I am saying you responding or not are both acts. Whether you like it or not we live in a world with others and with social expectations.

Further, inaction is not an act. Not giving a response is not an action - it is inaction, and thereby fundamentally different. — Tzeentch

I gave you an argument, namely that the situation is different when you walk past someone who asked you a question or whether you walked past someone without him asking a question. You may counter that by some assertion on your part but it is hardly convincing now is it?
Just because you say so something is such and such does not make it such and such. Luckily you are not a lawyer because you would have a damn hard time wrapping your head around crimes of omission.

The relative texts in Kant’s corpus make clear to lie is always an affront to a good will, from which is derived to lie is never a moral practical objective. From that, it is just as clear the perfect duty is always more compelling. — Mww

I would think that follows as well yes.

I would rather be responsible for a guy’s possible torment that may not even manifest seriously, or that torment which subsides over time, than to jeopardize my moral character by lying in order to not cause it. — Mww

That I would say is also correct Kantian reasoning.

The water pipe or 'nargile', is my tipple of choice. I have a nice one at home which I use with Turkish double apple tobacco or with Syrian lemon mint. It is very mild compared to the stuff mentioned here. Those, for me, I found not to be conducive for thinking, but the water pipe aids in concentration and when reading I tend to stop every paragraph to note new ideas down. Purely the large quantities of nicotine I guess for an otherwise non-smoker, but it works.

:lol: In the old days, I left home early in the morning and did my own thing all day and then went home when people began turning their lights on. I don't think it is safe to give our children that much freedom today. We didn't lock the doors to our house or car and we lived in a Los Angeles suburb. :lol: If you can find the movie "Blast From the Past" it makes an interesting statement about social change where I grew up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhMQOb0tEmI More has changed than our understanding of science. We no longer have the culture that we and that is why I write! — Athena

Nahh, I think you are more scared than you used to be. That is because there were the dangers that you know, now you do not know the dangers anymore. Crime rates go up or down but the trend is downward.

This does not mean I am stuck in the past because I believe if we do not self-destruct, we are transitioning into a New Age, that is so different from the past, people in the New Age will not be able to relate to our primitive past. Exploiting each other and nature as we have done up to this point will be unthinkable. Dressing people in uni-forms and having them march into the enemy's weapons will be unthinkable, but dropping bombs on the enemy may still occur? I like what Alisdair Mcintyre says in the speech because he mentions what a culture and time in history has to do with our concept of morals. It is also a political matter. We now have reactionary politics based more on our feelings than our intellect. When making decisions we look inward to see how we "feel" about this or that, not evaluate how it fits with our principles. What are principles? We have a culture that is so unsure of everything we are powerless to do anything but follow orders to get what we want. This is not a good stopping place for the future. — Athena

Well I hope for this new age, but how do we get there? I reappraisal of the classics, yeah might be... Perhaps indeed also a reevaluation of our relationship to our world. However, things look very dire. They look dire according to me because of the accelerating economic inequality between people. The working class has been dismantled and share holder capitalism triumphed and profit is of no benefit anymore to the people who created it. The result is 'immiseration', an alienated class of people who's only option is to love from day to day and enjoy what they can without thinking ahead. They will not read the classics or care for the environment through no fault of their own, but just because they are busy making a living. This will increase polarization in society because they will defend what little they have from the masses that have even less. Therefore it will have to start somewhere and the answer might well be one you do not like, more interference in the economic lives of the citizens.

Okay, I have to read that! He published a few books and I am not sure which one is the most important to my effort. I am too tired to figure it out now. — Athena

The Worker: Dominion and Form. He also wrote about his experiences in war but that is not of interest to you. I do think though he will describe and affirm exactly what you will dislike. However, that is why he needs to be read, or at least why I think you should read him. He thinks Prussian knowledge of duty is great and that we will become technological 'workers', but it will be up to us to give technology soul. It is a book way ahead of its time I think.

Thanks @Mww, it touches on the very thorny subject of the conflict of duties in Kant. What if an imperfect duty, say taking care of the moral well being of others conflicts with the perfect duty not to lie, as in Amalac's case. What to do?

Isn't the crux of the dilemma that telling the truth would cause the man significant emotional harm, and thus it was not a question he truly wanted answered?

If that's not the case, then what are we even here for? If the man wants to know the painful truth, then it certainly isn't bad to tell it to him, and lying would be even more clearly wrong. — Tzeentch

The problem is we never know. We can only do our duty, but not think for someone else. If you have perfect knowledge that he did not want this question answered he might be right. However, you never have, so all we can do is accept the other person as an autonomous individual who chooses his own path in life. He chose to ask that question. If you decide he really does not want it answered, you violate his autonomy.

What duty? — Tzeentch

The imperfect duty to help.

Well, if one no longer takes the position that telling the truth causing significant harm, disproportionate to the harm of telling a lie, then there is no dilemma. — Tzeentch

You are using an utilitarian calculus, Kant would not. In another thread you argued that context does not matter. You are an inconsistent Kantian.

But even then, I don't see how non-interference makes one the owner of the problem, as though whoever asks questions may lay some moral claim on the bystander's attention. — Tzeentch

Because you were asked a question. Not answering a question is an act too. You make it seem like it is not an act. That is a wrong assumption. If I ask you in the street "may I ask you a question?" and you are basically ignoring me, you are being rude, or you did not hear it, or you were in a hurry, but at least I am going to think about why you plainly ignored me. You indeed do not owe me an answer, but me asking the question drew you and me into a kind of relationship. However when I pass you by on the street and you say npthing at all I will not think anything of it.

No, he decided that fate for himself, however tragic that may be. — Tzeentch

No, he asked the question, so he wanted to know. At least presuming people act rationally. Which we have to, we assume people are rational, that is what accords them human dignity at least according to Kant. You deliberately did not help him and thereby violated an imperfect duty.

There's no reason the cause of his worries and emotions should be projected on some innocent bystander. — Tzeentch

Nor is there if you just told the man the truth. He asked for it, you gave it, what can be wrong. Instead you chose to make yourself the owner of the problem by not telling him.

The claim was made (or at least the impression was given) that answering the man truthfully or not answering the question was bad.

I disagreed. — Tzeentch

I disagree too. I took your position (ore or less) for the sake of this debate. We disagree on not answering the question. I would say that is bad. You let your own desire not to hurt the man's feelings control you. that is a sign of bad faith... bad faith so it is...

Not to answer is to choose non-interference, and such is one's right. — Tzeentch

Not answering is veiled interference. There is no such thing as a non-answer to a question. The situation when you do not give an answer while a question was asked, is not the same as the situation that there was no question asked to begin with. The man will suffer his anxiety until the bitter end and will not even know, whereas he did ask.... You have decided he should suffer that fate. He decided to ask a question.

One doesn't owe the man any answers, respect or one's attention. The fact that the man is dying doesn't create a special situation where that would be the case. — Tzeentch

I do not have to answer, but I was asked a question. Why would I not answer? Not answering a question is ignoring. Why would ignoring someone be a good act?

@Tzeentch Not answering means ignoring and also means not taking the dying father seriously as an autonomous agent. I would consider that just as wrong, but an easy cop out. But actually, I am on our side in this debate... I think your post is directed mostly @Amalac

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts on a few things, particularly around the ethics and moral discussion.

Ex; 1 - There are two men. One man has committed not only a series of heinous homicides in terms of breaking the law, but has also effectively taken multiple lives of numerous moral agents without remorse or justification. The second man, has no such background. Instead, he goes to work, comes home, attends to his community with a series of good deeds, and feeds his family. The only important commonalities are both need a new heart, and there is only one.

Did the above woman, removing all reactionary emotions and logical inconsistency, make an interesting point to consider?

1. Would it then be in our best interest to choose the latter man, over the former to receive a new heart? And if not, if the decision is simply to be random, and the former man receives the heart, and the man has a complex and patterned negative behavior history and recidivism, where as the former has the same, but positive, and the decision turns out to be more harmful than the previous selection, to whom does this speak to?

Should these then be elements be taken into account, when selecting recipients of organ transplants? — Cobra

I go with unenlightened's answer and Caldwell's. Medics are not judges. We cannot know the future and we also cannot judge the merit of one's life. At least that is not the reasoning doctors should employ. They are in the business of curing people not in the business of judging whether someone lived rightly or wrongly. The sentiments of the woman in your example are understandable, but should not become a basis of choosing what kind of medical action to perform.

The question actually does become salient in times of the pandemic. Many hosipitals, states and countres have drawn up criteria of what needs to be done when there are more patients than ventilator machines for instance. Determining moral worth is universally rejected I think, but other criteria such as age or perhaps whether the patient has dependents on them are not so clear cut. There is a good question in there, but I would be loathe to weigh the values of a human life.

What I don't understand is why this mere logical possibility in some hypothetical world has any relevance to how we should act in the actual world, where that almost certainly won't happen in any near future. The criterion of “universalization” as a way to distinguish good acts from bad ones just seems arbitrary to me.

Why is it that if an action can be universalized without contradiction, then the action is morally/ethically justified, and morally/ethically reprehensible otherwise? Without circular reasoning, I mean. — Amalac

Well, I think it is because of Kant's reverence for the principle of autonomy. You only have recourse to your good will, you do not control anybody elses. If you are dependent on others for the good of your action, then you lose that autonomy. That is why he has qualms with consequentialism and the utilitarian calculus as a basis for ethics.

I think his question is not. How should we act? But "can we know how we should act?" His answer is yes, because we can in any case deduce what kinds of acts are problematic. If we are dependent on others to determine the good of our action we have forfeited autonomy. It is not that an action if perse justified if we can universalize it, in any case it does not violate our duties. Both drinking red wine and drinking coca cola or drinking Pepsi can be universalized, however, that does not mean one should drink either. Just that you do not violate any duties by drinking them.

I prefer that over making him terrified and sad/depressed. — Amalac

You might. But you are not the basis for ethics. What you are doing is thinking for someone else and robbing him of his autonomy. He does not as the question for nothing. What you are doing is claiming a status you do not have, namely as someone who can choose to define who is a worthy legislator in the knngdom of ends. According to Kant what you do is wrong and we can see why: if everyone would do the same thing, the whole institution of questioning would collapse. So you can only do it by claiming some sort of eception for yourself.

Why does he have to learn about his fate in the first place? If he doesn't, he won't be terrified by his imminent death. It is more likely that he will suffer less if he doesn't learn about his fate, so I think it's better to lie to him. — Amalac

Because he asked and because of his dignity as a questioning rational human being. If he had not wanted to know it, he should not have asked.

And yes, I know deontologists don't care about the probable effects of actions, but I still find that unreasonable. They themselves use probabilistic criterions all the time: when they get out of their house, they don't give serious consideration to the idea that it might be better to stay home because a meteor might fall on their head if they get out, or that suddenly it'll start to rain heavily leading to them being struck by lightning when they get out — although they can't be certain those things won't happen — because such events are very unlikely to happen. And the same is true for almost all of their beliefs in daily life. — Amalac

I have no idea what bearing this has on anything. Of course you can strategically plan your actions... We have no control over the weather, but we can know how we need to act in the field of ethics. A deontologist uses exactly this example against consequentialism. You cannot be certain so you are basically determining good and bad behavior on contingent outcomes over which you have no control. Ethics depends on your will and whether that will is good or not.

Yet when it comes to ethical considerations about the effects of each action, they suddenly seem to stop caring about the probable consequences of each action, and just care about following the categorical imperative, only because we can't be completely certain about the consequences of each of our actions, and because some elaborate and unlikely scenarios in which the actions lead to bad consequences are possible (not always though, sometimes they do mention possibilities which aren't that unlikely, and should be taken into account). — Amalac

You keep thinking it is some sort of empirical criterion, it is not. It is not because of the consequences we need to apply the categorical imperative, it is because it tells you right from wrong. It does that by showing you what would happen if everyone acted according to the maxim you set yourself. If that cannot be universalized it follows that you can only live by that maxim by claiming some sort of special privilege for yourself.

I'm not trying to refute Kantian ethics, I just think its core criterion is arbitrary. Nor do I think that an act is good because most people think it is (“ad populum”), the examples where intended to make people question whether a criterion that leads them to act in that way is really the best one at their disposal, in accordance with their basic moral intuitions. — Amalac

The first I tend to agree with, that is why I am not a Kantian, but the second is a misreading of Kant. He does not claim an action is good because most people think it is. If everyone is unreasonable everyone will choose a wrong criterion. The right criterion is determined by reason alone, not by people abiding or not abiding by it.

the examples where intended to make people question whether a criterion that leads them to act in that way is really the best one at their disposal, in accordance with their basic moral intuitions. — Amalac

Your examples are actually arguments ad populum, not Kant's.

Supposing it became common knowledge (which is not likely, so long as there are deontologists suggesting a different course of action) I think the suffering they would feel after finding out about their son's dead outweighs the suffering caused by the anxiety they may feel for not being able to get an answer to that question. — Amalac

Yes, you are a utilitarian. So far so good, but Kant is not. I am also not. Refuting Kant's position on the Cat imp. will not save your own ethical system. You would need to engage with Kant's objections to utilitarianism if you want that.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (Germanerl Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress in Education for Democracy, August, 1939) — Athena

Our form of government is a republic. Only very small populations can have direct democracy and there was a time in Athens when every male citizen who came of age had to attend the governing meetings, so everyone understood the reasoning of the law and had an opportunity to change that reasoning, as a meeting of the gods debating until having a consensus. — Athena

Ok, clear enough. But then, what Athens had was no democracy as we understand it. People loving outside the city walls were not citizens, women were not citizens, slaves were not citizens, foreigners were not citizens. Even Aristotle (and I mean Aristotle, not a footnotes in the history of philosophy!) could not vote in Athenian democracy. He was a foreigner, a 'metoik', excluded from many rights the full Athenian citizens had.

I believe it is important we understand democracy as a culture not the form of government. Government is only one aspect of democracy. We retain the power of the people by electing representatives that is a republic. However, again when we are not transmitting that culture through education, we can not manifest democracy any more than a church will manifest Christianity if it puts the Bible in a back corner and teaches math and science instead of Bible stories. — Athena

Ok, so your problem is with a certain cultural identity, an ideal form. It is not a form we have or a form that might have manifested itself fully at any one time, but a certain cultural ideal that you refer to as 'democracy'. I understand it and I am not criticizing it just seeing if we can get our terms straight and aligned. This cultural ideal is built around equality, but also around a set of cultural values. The heroes of old, maybe the battles of old fought by different liberation movements, the stories of old. One peculiar puzzle you face is that the stories of old also relegated the narratives of others to a seat of lesser importance. In the US for instance the stories of the native Americans or stores of people of color. Every American hero you names is a 'dead white man' in popular parlance. I am not the most woke on this forum, but sensitivity to this aspect of 'democracy' is needed. You present it as a rather unproblematic situation that existed in the USA of old, but like Athenian democracy it was made possible by the exclusion of a lot of 'others'. That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past.

Why do you think learning about the world is important? I am not saying it is not important but I am struggling with a question of identity and unity. To destroy our sense of identity and cultural agreements could have negative consequences. Wow, could this be a philosophical subject. I somewhat envy Native Americans who have strong tribal identities as this is so different from the "Lonely Crowd" in which most of us live. And that concern of the lonely crowd is the opposite of my concern in the paragraph above, that we lose individual power and the strong leaders we need. :roll: — Athena

Of course the question of identity is a philosophical subject, very much so. It featured and still features prominently in debates on political philosophy between the more liberal inclined thinkers and the so called 'communitarians'. You might really like the work of the communitarian thinker Alisdair Mcintyre. I think the phrase, 'the lonely crowd' is very well put. I think that is the situation we are in.

I don't think what I have said is comprehensible but it is confused. I am afraid this confusion is behind the intense political and social conflict we have now. I think nations can be as in great need of psychoanalysis and individuals. The US is having an identity crisis. — Athena

It is confused because it is a difficult subject in which it is very hard to stay consistent. It is a problem because articulating a new vision for the future is hard. It is also hard to interpret the past, but it is interesting enough. This is our attempt at psychoanlysis. What happened to the spirit of the US, what happened to the spirit of Europe? We are a 'lonely crowd', lonely because we have no common element. However I do not think that American heroes will do it in todays world. We will need a common goal or common threat.

Education for technology has always been education for slaves. Our technology has advanced but it is still for slaves and their society is run by policies they do not make. This mentality wants a Hitler or a Trump, who will make life good for them. They have archy confused with liberty and favor brute force over reason. No matter how technologically smart they may be, that is not equal to wisdom. Raymond seems to be arguing what is wrong with this. — Athena

Raymond seems to be arguing from a romantic environmentalist point of view. I am arguing for a new metaphysics which might well come from an environmentalist perspective, but we cannot let go of tehcnology and I also disagree we are slaves now more then we were in the past. In fact, I will put it more bluntly. The Prussian model has made this kind of criticism possible, because of its system of mass education. the high level of education it provided to many people have spawned the same critical thinkers that now question it. There would never have been a Heidegger, Foucault, Ulrich Beck, to find new paths without this type of education.

I think we are indeed in an existential crisis, but simply going back to the old ways will not do it. In any case a lot of people would die were we to die if we did that. The question is what wisdom is when confronted with such a conundrum. The criticism is made possible by the mass mobilization for science we have undertaken in the past decades.

am so glad you see the expansion of military order throughout the whole of society. You may have been taught to think about the means of achieving goals. But I don't think this comes with education in the US. There are factions that are trying to get us there and the US is on the brink of another civil war!
We are processing a complete change of consciousness and this is a very turbulent process! People are flipping out and gunning down everyone in sight. The storming of our Capitol Building was an organized action and I don't know how anyone can believe Trump did not intentionally inspire it. From what I have heard through television, Germany has made awesome progress and I speak of the US that has not made that progress and is in intense trouble right now. We are at the point where Hitler took over, not where Germany is today.

And I am not sure about everything I have said, but I am trying to think through want you said and my more immediate information gathering that has been hammering away at the industrial model of education. I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

I was not a happy kid at school and I saw quite keenly what it did. It mobilizes each and every citizen for war and this condition of total mobilization does not leave you. It continues in higher education, in the jobs you undertake, in the time tables you are being regimented into, in the meticulous moment of testing, examination, from university days to child rearing advice... We have a society of mass mobility but also mass mobilization in which you are called to whichever front you are needed, a mercenary plying his trade, going to wherever you are ordered. That is our condition. You would liek to read Ernst Junger I think. Ernst Junger is an old German conservative who saw in the first world war the forge in which a new age was being crafted, the era of the 'worker', but the worker regimented like the soldier... It is a wonderful text eerie in its precociousness of society's self understanding...

I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

Thanks :sparkle: :flower:

Yep. I like the "little pepper-corn" analogy. I've mentioned before that the number of new research papers in math alone arriving at Cornell's ArXiv.org surpasses 250 per day. — jgill

Yes. I am (we are) a soldier in the mobile army that is science today. You can only stand in awe of the immense brainpower that goes into the 250 articles in one university alone. Most of these articles will not be worth the paper they are printed on, no matter how brilliant they are. They will remain still born. But somehow, somewhere someone may be inspired by one and writes her own article and that might inspire someone and he or she goes on to write something truly great. That is how science works these days, a massive human wave attack.

That is exactly what we do in academia nowadays... we are not trained to be revolutionaries. Part of me resents it, but another part of me sees wisdom in this slow but meticulous grinding of our lens...

And what's wrong with “depending on their actions” in that sense? Again, is it likely that everybody, or at least a majority of people will suddenly all start lying any time soon? No, that's probably never going to happen. So why should that hypothetical world in which everybody lies matter in the least? I'm not trying to justify liars, I just don't think lying always or very often is wrong for the reasons Kant thinks it is. — Amalac

Well for Kant what is wrong with depending on the action of others is that you relinquish your autonomy. Kant's concern is not for some actual world where acts have actual consequences. It is purely cerebral, logical. Whether it is likely or not is hypothetical, but he is after something categorical, a rule of reason. The hypothetical world does not matter as an actual possible world, but as a purely logical possibility. His question is not first and foremost, what is ethical, but first: can we know what is ethical. He introduces the categorical imperative in the Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. It is therefore not so much ethical, as it is metaphysical, concerned with what we can know.

I don't think it follows that if you reject Kant's criterion for living what he considers an ethical live, then you can do anything you want. It just means you move on to some consequentialist criterion for determining how you should act. — Amalac

No of course not, but he rejects consequentialism. I do not know if his cure is not worse than the poison. I do think that his admonition to think for yourself has merit. I am an ethical eclectic and I treat ethical maxims as 'principles' in the sense law treats legal principles, guiding general rules that guide decision making, but which are stacked against other principles.

And why should the person provide general rules for others, why can't he just have a personal and private ethic? Even if he did provide general rules about how he thinks everybody ought to act, it's not likely that others will change the way they act by what some random person tells them, the reality is that most people simply won't give a damn about it, unless it's someone close to them, someone famous or someone influential. — Amalac

Well, his point is trying to find out if we can know, by the light of reason alone, whether there is indeed a rule for ethics that always holds up. You can decide for yourself how to act. That is his point. I do my duty you do yours... or not. But we can discern, he thinks, what our duties are.

Also Kant concludes — if I'm not mistaken — that lying is wrong no matter what the circumstances are. And I think that's just wrong, as is shown in the example I gave of a man on his death bed asking if his son is ok, when the other person knows that their son is dead. — Amalac

I actually do not endorse Kant's decontextualized ethical stance and used your objection in my discussion with @Tzeentch here: here I do think your example is wrong, at least from a Kantian standpoint. If it becomes common knowledge that is such a situation we would lie to the dying father, then dying fathers cannot ask that question anymore because he will never know if he gets an honest answer. So we 'sacrifice' the feelings of the dying father in order to keep our framework, that we answer truthfully, intact. So other dying relatives may ask that question and not face the perennial anxiety of not knowing.

Here's another example: suppose someone's son is terminally ill, and the doctors tell the man that his son will almost certainly die soon. A few days later he goes to visit his son in the hospital, and the boy fearfully asks him if he's going to die. Would the father be doing something wrong or unethical if he lied to his son, telling him that he is ok and that he will recover soon, so that he wasn't terrified and would suffer less? I don't think so. — Amalac

Yes he would commit a wrong. He thinks for the boy, who asked an honest question and would expect an honest answer. He takes away the boy's dignity as a rationally thinking being. His duty is to be there for the boy in his dying moments as an acceptance of that fate. Something the boy cannot accept if he does not know it is coming.

Once, walking in the field, I saw a weary fox, on the verge of total exhaustion, but still struggling to keep running. A few minutes later I saw the hunters. They asked me if I had seen the fox and I said yes. They asked me where it had gone and I lied to them. I don't think I would have been a better person if I had told them the truth.

Well for me, the principle is not to lie. There is also a principle telling you to aid the one in need. I would stack up these principles and weigh which one weighs heavier in this particular case, as many points of view as can be considered. It would not be Kant's answer though. That does not make Kantian ethics inconsistent. The point is you cannot refute Kant's idealist ethics with consequntialism or by appealing to majority opinion. Kant's system is a rationalist one whereas Russel's here is an empirical one.

I am sorry I am only a domestic woman. Pay careful attention here and look for the gray that is both black or white. And know your questions are greatly expanding my own understanding of everything! You are giving me an enlightening moment of the kind that brings me to this forum. I do have a college education and I listen to college lectures daily. But I have never transitioned into the kind of educated person of which you speak. To me, your questions about having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD, is a language from Mars. Despite all my education, and self-education, I am still a domestic woman. And I will think I have died and gone to heaven if you are willing to explore this with me. — Athena

Well, exploring it we are already doing. I can help, at least by being someone you can throw ideas at and also by being critical. That is the academic way. I can sometimes be tough, but never out of dislike or disdain but because questioning your own and other's ideas sharply though fairly helps and makes them better. And well. I mt a prof once, she got her PhD after twenty years of being a house wife. She has her rough English accent, but she was an expert on Derrida and sharp as a whip... It is rare but it happens.

quote="Athena;641963"]Now, what do you think education should teach us? You said "schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society." I said women were in control of education. Yes, the education experts tended to men. All the positions of "authority" would have been held by men, except in the one-room schools, where an 18-year-old woman was expected to give children of all ages an education, as though this were no different from any other child care. I am speaking of my grandmother's generation of teachers. Most grade school teachers were women. All education was based on liberal education. We teach children math to teach them how to think. We teach them the American mythology that is in history books. Education is about literacy and reading the classics, not about having a high-tech job. Am I conveying a feeling about education that is helpful in answering your questions?[/quote]

Well ideally, in my point of view, education makes us happier persons who understand and can cope with the world around them. That would also mean that education tends to shift with how the world around them looks. American heroes are great but children today grow up in an international world, heck, we are even conversing here in an international forum. I only recently learned about American heroes and to be honest in my view they are quaint people... that is because I have not imbibed 'being an American' from an early age. But to be able, to hold their own in an international world the kids should know how relative those stories are and develop a keen interest in European, Chinese, South american and African heroes. They do not need to know the mytology but they need to learn how to listen, how to communicate. So what education is and should be depends on the times.

Have you seen the movie The Reader". I saw it long ago and my memory is vague, but the gist is a German woman who is illiterate is found guilty of war crimes. She was not guilty but was hiding the fact she could not read. If she had let that be known she would have been found innocent. A man takes interest in her and when she goes to prison, he sends her audio tapes of the classics. You see, she was only following orders and that was being a good Nazi and she had no concept of independent moral judgment and refusing to follow orders. That would have depended on knowing the classics and thinking about right and wrong. — Athena

I haven't unfortunately. It was on my 'watch list' and maybe if I find it I will watch it soon. But anyway, many Nazi's were guilty, men who learned how to read and write. Nazism was one side of German history, it also had wonderful theologians, philosophers, and literary geniuses. What interests me is not the question of good and bad, but under what conditions did one education system replace the next and what were the reasons for it. There are probably no monocausal explanations for it. What were the conditions under which Prussia developed it and what was the reason for its success. To do that one needs to trace very meticulously and also with distance, how these steps took place and what were the turning points. You have the material to do so, but then you need methodology and theory...

Why do we recoil at Nazis following orders? Why have today's prisoners who, in prison, study the classics, become changed, people? Here is a problem with Christianity- it is not Jesus saving anyone but learning good moral judgment, and social rules, good citizenship, and peer support and pressure that makes us good. When we had liberal education based on the classics and being literate, we were fulfilling the promise of the enlightenment. Education for technology does not do that! Now we have a technologically very smart society, without wisdom. — Athena

Too fast. You might well find the Prussian systems stems from enlightenment ideas. The classics themselves say little. There were atrocious wars in the past and heinous crimes, just like there are now. In fact crime cates go down, people are not worse than they were in the past. Not that I am against a classical education, but I am against easy black and white dichotomies.

The Prussian model of government is the Prussian military order applied to citizens. This begins with Prussian generals determining the military action and precisely defining every single task that is necessary to pull this off. Once the plan is complete, the swarm of ants (army) will do exactly as planned, even if every general is killed. Unlike kingdoms, bureaucracies never die. — Athena

Indeed! Actually the same kind of military regimes were enabled everywhere in bureaucracy, in the hospitals, in areas hit by pandemics, in factories and in schools. Michel Foucault write about it brilliantly. But actually, the German military, at least in WW2 was so ruthlessly efficient because they allowed field commanders leeway into how to reach objectives. That you describe is known as Taylorism, or Fordism, the mindless deskilled working on the production line. The current 'mobilization' of citizens is far less crude and more insidious than that. We are led to accepting the goals rather mindlessly, but the means. we are taught to think about them. It is much more efficient than thinking ahead in every eventuality. As actually German lawyers learned. Prussia was also one of the first countries with something like 'science of law'. What I mean is, also 'Prussian education' developed. We are no longer in the 19th century.

That was very inefficient and it was tied to nepotism. :gasp: You might imagine the problems with that. And this is also a social problem, a social problem the English education protected. England strongly supported the division of classes that they had and rejected Germany's education for technology because education for technology tends to be a social leveler. Suddenly with education, the commoners qualify for jobs because they have the training, AND hiring is based on merit. Merit hiring means uncle Joe who is an alcoholic and is lacks the necessary knowledge/training does not get the job, but the job is given to the man with no breeding, but the right training. Education for good citizenship and education for a good Englishman was not so different. As I stated, US education was about good citizenship, not technology and that meant the US was technological behind Germany and not ready for war. But Abraham Lincoln who grew up in the boonies could become president. — Athena

But I reckon social mobility is a good thing. Finally your class id not determine you, finally, you could thrive and develop just like everyone could. Three cheers for Prussian education no?

Unfortunately, Eisenhower realized too late, the modern German model of bureaucracy, and education, leads to dependency on specialized experts. He warned us of that danger, but most Americans think what I am saying is a "conspiracy theory". They do not know enough about bureaucratic organization to see the problem. No matter what system is used, there will be problems. The Prussian model of bureaucracy is far superior to the one the US had. We could not have a national pension plan without that change. However, our past education, liberal or classical education is essential to our liberty and democracy. — Athena

But why is it essential? From these to paragraphs I get the impression that the German model was much more democratic, egalitarian and beneficial to the senior citizens. Specialization, well of course. Pur knowledge has increased immesely. We would not be talking had it not been for specialization and people knowing about communication and technology. I am not saying these things just for the sake of disagreement but to tease out, what 'democracu' means to you. If you ask me, these are all fundamental pillars of a functioning democracy.

You are right about the importance of governmental development, but we might want to keep Tocqueville's 1835 (Democracy in America) warning in mind. We are becoming a despot that is opposed to the democracy we had. Or as Aldous Huxley said. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." — Athena

I agree but to some extent. De Tocquville also stands for a rather elitist conception of democracy. And I am not favouring the rule of mister and misses Average, but to me democracy also means fair opportunities to all.

According to Kant himself they are equivalent. Of course Catch-22 was not written as a refutation of Kant. I interpret it as such. I am a Hegelian and I recognise in Heller's work they same play with contradictions. But anyway, I will really read all the posts, but for now I think what is important is that the three formulations are equivalent for Kant because they allude to the same thing, the moral law within. Just like we have a transcendental unity of apperception which grants us a world, we have a moral law within which makes it possible for us to discern ethical from unethical behavior. "What can we know" remains I think a corner stone for Kant.

@AmalacMaybe, I am silly, it is late anyway, so bare with me... But is Kolakowski not reading Kant is too existentialist of a way? Kant's metaphysical project is about deducing under what conditions knowledge is possible. Does Kantian ethics not take a similar route? The question is, is there a recognizable foundation for ethics? I can of course will all kind of things. I can live by the principle: "T lie through my teeth and I hope everyone speaks the truth". However, one immediately recognizes that if everyone lived by that principle it would not turn out to be a correct description of the world for anyone. What I recognize is that I give myself a 'status aparte' that is dependent on the behavior of others to make sense. That I think Kant would consider building your kingdom on shaky foundations, because you are not acting autonomously, but you become dependent on the actions of others.

One recognizes that such a maxim might be a way to live, but not a way to live ethically. It is the inversion of treating each other as a means to an end. If you hold this maxim you can only become an end in itself if everyone does as you hope they will do. It is also the inversion of being a legislator in the kingdom of ends, because you write a rule 'ad personam', yourself. You are therefore not legislating, i.e. providing general rules. You can do everything you want, but you will recognize it as not ethical. I think that is Kant's point. His claim is we can recognize ethical from unethical behavour, so knowledge of ethics is possible.

This came to mind. From Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," which I loved when I read it 45 years ago but which I'm afraid to read again in case it isn't as good as I remember:

“From now on I'm thinking only of me."

Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."

"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I? — T Clark

I just had to comment on this one. Catch 22 taught me philosophy. Here Yossarian is of course totally right and what he does is exposing a weakness in the Kantian argument, (or maybe the argument of Kantians). Yossarian's point is that ethics is social and not individual. Ethics is also practical and not 'formal'. Catch-22 shows how every attempt at rationality in an irrational situation leads to contradiction. The only character in the novel that understood it is Orr. He embraces the contradiction: Why did he risk his life crashing, because he wanted to live. Why did the Nately's whore hit him over the head? Because he paid her to do it.

The links I gave you were not my sources of information. My sources of information are old books about education and include old grade school textbooks that are no longer in circulation. And thank you so much for recognizing the biggest reason humans disagree is different sources of information. I seem to be at war with everyone because my sources of information came from the past. — Athena

That is very interesting. I am really interested in your research because indeed schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society. In that sense I really like this foray in different education systems. I did (and do) not know enough about the change in education system in the 18th and 19th century. So your old text books are really great sources of information. Can I ask, do you have a theory for your research, in other words is it guided by a certain hypothesis or theoretical framework? I am immediately thinking about a Foucauldian research on 'governmentality' and what the governmentality is of these different systems of schooling, the old American way and the Prussian system. Do you do your research yourself or in the context of a PhD research? Is there a research community or are you working on this by yourself?

My apologies. The problem you mentioned in this paragraph was totally my fault and I realized that while driving to the store. I regretted not having a more playful response to what you said about Athena. And as I said above, I feel like I stand alone because of the old books giving me a different perspective. I feel very burdened by the information I gathered many years ago, when I began buying old books about education to gain an understanding of my grandmother's generation of teachers, who thought they were defending democracy in the classroom. :lol: :cry: Oh, the futility of it all. My grandmother was a very important source of information and you would have to know her to know why. She and her generation are all dead now and facts are not enough to explain how different our past was. — Athena

Yes, yes, well we all have the idea we do the right thing and we all grow up in certain systems, certain ways of doing we take for granted now. That is the beauty of Foucauldian research and the beauty of the research you do, because it might show how this system we all take for granted is not all that 'natural' or 'logical'. However, also us have that bias and even you as a researcher, in that respect you need a lot of extra information, surrounding the schooling system. That explains my question about the embeddedness of your research, because you would be burdened doing everything by yourself without other to talk to and to compare data with others who share a similar interest. Historic research is very hard to do because you need a grasp of the interlocking structures of these societies you examine.

The root of the illusion of disagreement is the difference between Prussia and Germany. Have you read Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem'? He was trying to warn the world of Germany's intentions to go to war and he was ignored until the first world war had begun. This was one of the first books I bought when I began my research. I bought it because of great admiration for the Germans and I had heard the US had adopted the German model of education. The other book I bought that same day, was a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Convention. These two books are the beginning of the burden I feel. — Athena

No, I cannot say I have read that book. I also do not know it. It might be. There is a history behind WW1 as well of course. Recently historians are more sensitive to the idea that the narrative that Germany (or austria-Hungary together with Germany) started the big war. There are many causes and resaons for such a war. However, indeed The 19th century was a golden age for Germany and the dominant force in Germany was Prussia.

I do wonder about this burden you feel. As a researcher I hardly feel any burden myself also not when I see things going wrong. Burdens you wish to resolve. As a researcher I feel I do not want anything, I just gather data and analyze and offer my analysis. If you want to resolve issues, you are in danger of turning into an activist. What is your personal stake in the research if I may ask?

They became politically irresponsible and this really distressed Charles because he saw them as the superior people. All this relates to what happened to the US and Trump being our Hitler and the political struggles we have now because of reactionary politics just as Germany had before Hitler was able to take power. There is an education link to all of this. — Athena

I agree there is an educational link. I think one should be careful to compare historical times with current ones. I would not easily compare Trump to Hitler even though I am not fond of the former president. Where I think parallels lie is because of 'depolitization' of society at least on the level of education. But it is a thorny one, the Weimar republic was torn apart in struggles between left, extreme left and conservative. Hitler came to power in a society that falling apart, polarization is visible now too, but of a different kind. It is tempting to paint broad brush strokes, but one needs to keep being sensitive to the differences.

Please give that paragraph some thought so you get the nuances in what I am saying. What I am saying is not without nuances! I just can not say everything all at once. Imagine entering a relatively high-tech war, with a population that knows though about technology. No typist, no mechanics, no engineers, but they know about Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Lincoln as national heroes and have an idea of what is expected of them as good citizens. You know, like God's good children. They knew our national mythology that had as much to do with real-life as Homer's books, that told the Greeks how to be Greeks. (Americanized Greek mythology) — Athena

Yes, I do and find it fascinating. Also here I see many links to governmentality research. The states of Europe, in the 18th and 19th due to mutual competition perfected the science of the state, aptly called 'statistics'. Germany, but also France and the UK had to mobilize the people to gain the upper hand in the race for the colonies. In the US there was space enough, no competition and there was enough land to carve out a good agricultural living. However, do not idealize one form or the other. Those children of God also ruthlessly murdered the native Americans and institutionalized a system of racial aprtheid until well into the 20th century. Ideas in the 18th and 19th century were just very backward everywhere.

The Prussians lived for the love of military might, as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. So we technologically were in big trouble but now think of the teachers' argument. Education for patriotic citizens and mobilizing the nation for war. The book of the1917 National Education Association is full of interesting information about mobilizing for war. — Athena

There is of course and it is a fascinating read. Warfare was something in which to take pride. The Prussians indeed cultivated this sense, but the US had to catch up fast and of course in 1917 the US was embroiled in a cataclysmic European war, no wonder the subject of mass mobilization is of great interest.

Now let us jump to 1958 and the new warfare of air warfare and nuclear missiles. President Eisenhower put the Military-Industrial Complex, also known as Hitler's New World Order, in place, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act is an essential piece to the Military-Industrial Complex. We can now mobilize for war in 4 hours or less, long before the citizens need to be mobilized for war. Patriotism was essential to past wars, it is no longer important. Are you thinking of the differences in education and the cultural differences? I hope so. I hope you come back with a reply that advances this discussion. — Athena

Yes I am. Whether I have an answer I do not know. Of course we have technological warfare now. The patriotic spirit in the sense of 'dying for one's country' is less needed. If we want to educate the people for war we would need to ferret out the technical minds. The way we make war palatable now is to present it as a computer game. the images are of people falling not of them crying in agony. War is sensitized. It is not presented in a patriotic way but as something that happens far away, in another world. War has become something to manage. War has become 'eco-nomics', household management. The word is very different from your grand mother's cold war world.

That is also why I am puzzled sometimes with the things you say. What do you mean with 'Hitler's new world order'? I thought the world order we inherited was the world order of the cod war, a bipolar world order pitting capitalism against communism...

Specialization is poison to democracy! Can we turn to classical literature once again? Pericles' raised the spirits of his fellow citizens at a funeral for fallen warriors, by comparing the differences between Sparta and Athens, and why Athens is right to defend its way of life in war. Sparta specialized their males for military service. All other work was done by slaves. Sparta determined what citizens needed and provided it through the use of slaves. Our technocracy is in line with Sparta the enemy of Athens. — Athena

Too unnuanced for my taste. Maybe ok as a comparison, but Athens' democracy was also build on slaves and could only work by excluding the great mass of people from consensus decision making. The same actually goes for the US in times past. The model of democracy you seem to favour actually requires the exclusion of many people and many legitimate interests. Enlightenment democracy is democracy for the happy few. In the 19th century the challenge the Prussians faced and later the rest of the world was how to manage a mass society, a society in which everyone wanted a voice. One way was discipline and drilling as the school system does. You call specialization a poison to democracy and that goes hand in hand with this. Specialization though might well his sociological inevitability. It is not coincidental that the great sociologists of old were... Germans. The greatest of which, Max Weber, grew up in Prussia and very meticulously already analyzed the 'iron cage' of bureaucratization.

The US had education that generalized everyone. Education for well-rounded individual growth. At the same time was education for independent thinking. These differences are why I keep speaking of the 1958 change in education that most certainly took us in the direction of specialization and replaced education for independent thinking with "groupthink". We have been killing our democracy since 1958. — Athena

However, the Prussian model was than already firmly adopted. So was it then the Prussian model or the act of mass mobilization? Again there is no fundamental disagreement and I think your research is fascinating. We cannot go back to the times of old and I would also not idealize those. Too many genocides are committed by people who live on earth revering heroes. The old native ones were eradicated... The challenge will be to keep mass education, it is a fundamental right and I think fundamental to a healthy modern democracy, but to bring back a sense of generalization, extend our awareness through space and time, because also the world is becoming smaller and the 'now' is extending itself rapidly, as evinced by discussions of our past and rights of future generations. Anoth imperative is restoring some sort of link with the earth and our environment, in a democratic way. No easy task though.

If including a certain object (violence) in a class (good) results in controversy and unsolvable conundrums, why not create a new category (goodish) and settle the matter once and for all? That way we can all sleep in peace. — Agent Smith

Because not all violence is goodish, most violence is simply bad. Volence is not a species of an object that can be classified under a certain class. Violence is the description of an act. Now what that act is, is not clear, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are many kinds of violence and whether that act is a good act or bad depends on the circumstances in which is act is performed. Moreover, I have no idea what to make of the glass 'goodish' it is not defined. We could as well rubricate it under the class 'badish' or 'iffy'...

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple — Agent Smith

Ethics is absolute and universal in my opinion. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, plain and simple. Ethical injunctions are binding to all, everywhere, every time. — Agent Smith

Well than you are living in a dream world because no one recognizes those injunctions as binding to all everywhere and every time. Not even the most absolutist of ethicists, Kant did. No one also "categorizes things with good". They ask what the right thing to do is, pace Sandel, not what the form of the good is.

And of course the controversy is not unnecessary, what kind of silliness is that? Sure, ethicists and lawyers for ages have been debating whether for instance euthanasia is justified, whether self defense is justified, whether killing in war is justified, no on along comes a fella called Agent Smith who tells the greatest minds in history it is all baloney. Wonderful.

If violence is to be admitted into the company of the good it can't, I'm afraid, be done so as an equal (as a good, as ethical). Suffice it to say that violence must know its place; it's a necessary evil and those who share my views have been gracious enough to reclassify violence, not as a necessary evil but as goodish. That's a huge concession I'm making here. — Agent Smith

You treat concepts like Platonic forms. The form of violence, the form of the good. Violence is a means to an end. It is a suspect means because it harms people and people tend to dislike being harmed. It is not good or bad 'in itself'. It is good or bad dependent on context. Donating a kidney is a generally good act, committing violence is generally bad. Context may change our judgment though. There simply is no need for categorical judgments.

Which would you prefer?

1. To save your friend without violence

or

2. To save your friend with violence

?

There's a difference there and, for me, it needs to be made explicit by developing a new concept: goodish (2). — Agent Smith

1 of course. However sometimes that is impossible. It does not go anywhere to answer the question whether violence can be ethical though. If I could safe my friend 1. through donating a kidney or 2. I could save him without donating a kidney I would also choose 2. That does not make me donating a kidney any less ethical to save my friend any less ethical.

@Manuel Thanks Manuel for letting me know you experience it! That is real cool, cheers :cool:

The reason I said that you should pick your battles was not because of qualms with you over this subject. It was through your connection of it to Biden's foreign policy. I respect your knowledge on the education system and that is why I honestly asked you for sources so I could inform myself with them, which you graciously gave. Your claims about Biden being undemocratic I found unconvincing and therefore I told you so. Your connection of them in my view weakens the strength of your argument and I think it is also a field in which you are less at home, but I may be wrong. Of course feel free to ignore them. I noticed something else as well, namely that when we breach a topic such as environmentalism and its Manichean roots we somehow ended up talking about education. That happened earlier as well as I recall.

Anyway, I respect you very much on this particular topic. I did not wish to come off condescending, if so I apologize. On the other hand I also do not find your statement that I should be on topic very fair. I also did not use that line against you when you broached the subject of environmentalism and the question of Manichean religion. I like to explore this topic of education with you and rest assured I respect you knowledge.

That said there are some reasons to think you paint an overly dark and indeed Manichean picture of the former US system and the Prussian system of education. Certainly, the education system developed in Prussia was aimed at nation building. It was also aimed at giving the populace the skills to survive in a very rapidly changing world in which bureaucracy and industrialization became driving forces. The German society in the 18th century was nothing like it is now. Illiteracy was rampant, petty princes ruled petty kingdoms, the population lived in conditions of serfdom, also mentioned on the wikipedia page you gave as a source. There was no such thing as mass education. thinking for oneself was at the time always only done by an elite of either merchant classes or nobility. It is easy to criticize a system of mass schooling from the luxury of the modern day world, but I would reckon the access to reading and writing for the population was a big step up from what it had been.

Moreover the idea of nation building in the way described in the video is abhorrent to us of course and especially with the second world war in mind the video becomes even more ominous. However seen in the light of the history of Germany it was not such a silly idea. In the 17th century Germany has fought one of the most ruthless civil wars in history that depopulated much of the country and led to 30 years of warfare in which the German realms (it was not a country back than) tore themselves apart. Germany faced powerful and colonial neighbors in France and Russia. Seen from the perspective of the European history of incessant warfare, the German goals become understandable. The picture of emperor Frederick also deserves a bit of nuance. He was seen as an enlightenment figure in correspondence with Voltaire and a benefactor of the arts and sciences. that goes to show again that your appeal to enlightenment ideals is not as straightforward as you expect them to be. enlightenment ideals value order, progress and mastery of the natural world through education and technology. How they turn out in practice is much more difficult to predict. They may also be used by an emperor who rules despotically.

There are also reasons to view the youtube clip with a bit of suspicion. Firstly it cherry picks among the quotes of Fichte. The wikipedia page for instance gives this as a Fichte quote: "Fichte asked for shaping of the personality of students: "The citizens should be made able and willing to use their own minds to achieve higher goals in the framework of a future unified German nation state"." Now that sounds very different already.

The second reason is a look at the one of the most 'command and control' institutions there is, the military. Prussian military tactics and later German military tactics were base on a combination of obedience and creativity. The adoption of a much more flexible approach to warfare based on objectives to be reached, but leeway to the commanders in the field as to how to reach them, required creativity and independent thinking. These abilities led to Germany being able to take on much more powerful foes 'on paper'. this actually mirrors the German research university, which also fosters creative, if specialized research. What I see in sociological terms is the bureaucratization an professionalization of education Now of course all for the greater glory of the nation, but they were regrettably very nationalistic times. We are talking about the age of colonialism, a very dark age in European history.

The third reason is that the video draws a straight line from Prussian education to Hitler and calls Fichte (Not pronounced 'Fitcht', or something but Fi'h'te) the father of modern neo-nazism. That claim is just silly. Why not simply nazism but neo-nazism? Those are different people from different cultural eras. The Prussian educational system might well be conducive to creating a law and order mentality that benefited Hitler's rise but it totally forgets the Weimar era in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

The Weimar Republic during its heyday in the 1920th saw all kinds of liberal reforms, art and culture flourished as never before and it was in many respects truly 'avant garde'. Apparently the same education system that brought Hitler to power was also capable of creating a cultural renaissance. therefore I think the picture is one sided.

That does not mean I disagree with your basic tenet, that education is too much aimed at creating output in the sense of unquestioning students that have merely mastered skills. I am frequently at odds with the educational professionals that want for me to create students who master a certain skill or other and who through a system of continuous self discipline, strive for excellence which mean mastery of their narrow field. I take a different approach, namely an argumentative spirit, there are no or not many right or wrong answers, but there is argument and argumentation is a joust, a challenge. I think that is why you also felt attacked by me.

Anyway I think there is more than meets the eye. We need a new type of education, one that moves towards questioning and investigation and towards interdisciplinarity instead of specialization. More and more it becomes clear we need to see problems not in specialistic isolation but in a holistic way, leaving space for uncertainty and complexity. It will ask a lot of us, because the old model is the one we use still even thought it may well be out dated. In that we can shake hands (if the pandemic would not prevent it...)

However, that doesn't make violence ethical. Violence is always unethical.

Many moral dilemmas maybe solved in this quite simple way - distinguish ethics from permissibility. — Agent Smith

If my only recourse to save a friend who is in danger without having provoked or caused the danger, is by using force than my action is not only permissible, it is also ethical. (subject to limitations of proportionality, subsidiarity, 'ultimum remedium' etc) At least I maintain that is is, Tzeentch does not.

We have promoted ideas of superiority in obvious ways, such as the notion that going to the "right colleges" makes people superior to those who just went to a community or a state college. Or those who have A grades are superior to those who have C grades. Or those who believe this and not that, are superior. Perhaps if we continue to discuss this I can think of betters words for explaining what has gone terribly wrong! It is not just that what we know that is important but also how we learn to think. — Athena

I do not mind continuing this discussion at all. after all I am in education, though in the Netherlands, not in the US. We have no private schools (yet) for instance, but only community or state education. We do not have Ivy league colleges but nearly all our state universitties are in the top 100 world wide. I am not saying that to brag or anything but display that our system is still much more egalitarian.

I have my own ideas of how the grading system works, what education does, and it is not all positive or a success story. I am a keen reader of Michel Foucault. I do wonder where you got the distinction between the US and 'Hitler's' system of education from. never heard this comparison and it seems way too unnuanced for me. So if you could point out to me where you got these ideas from I would sincerely appreciate it.

I also think you should be careful mixing subjects. International relations is something different from the education system. All kinds of moves are played in the international arena and no, that arena is not democratic. the Westphalian order sees states as sovereign, not subject to some higher democratic body. Focus your ideas and take one step at the time. I sound overly school master like maybe. but focus and you will be able to win your battles.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will be victorious in every battle, know neither the enemy nor yourself and you will succumb in every battle "Sun Tzu, the art of war, paraphrased. A Goddess of strategy needs to learn these things.

That is what Schopenhauer says yes. Willing is much more direct according to S. When we experience pain for instance we experience pain, pure and simple. It does not matter whether the pain is caused by a phantom limb or by a small black box like in the book Dune. The pain is real. So Schopenhauer state we have access to the real via another way than our reason, namely our will. Clever man Schopenhauer was, very clever. Clever and cranky though, very cranky.

Then it is not truth, and they were not facts. — Tzeentch

And the things we call truth nowadays, are they truth and facts or will time tell? And what should we do with our principles based on these? Were they principles or weren't they?

A shaky foundation is the best one can hope for. However, being unsure or having a shaky foundation is entirely acceptable if one does not allow others to become the victim of one's ignorance, which is exactly what one risks in the case of violence. — Tzeentch

Do you have children? If so they will become the victim of your ignorance whether you want it or not.

Unless some reasoning is presented, there's no difference between the two. And if a line of reasoning is presented, then it is an appeal to reason or logic. — Tzeentch

Yes but reasoning is presented, that is the whole point. When a police agent shoots a man he is asked why. If he then explains that the man was holding a gun and was shooting and that is why the officer took him down he presents

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch

a reason for his/her actions. Is it an appeal to logic? No. It is a justification of her use of force. It is actually an appeal to inductive reasoning. She feared the gunman might shoot again. Everything pointed towards it, though there was no certainty the gunman would have fired. It is an appeal to practical wisdom indeed.

The acknowledgement of one's fundamental ignorance can be a great basis for ethics. For one it should lead to a serious caution when imposing on others, violence being an example of one such imposition. — Tzeentch

I am all for serious cautions. That is why the use of violence is generally prohibited by law.

If person A justifies his violence towards person B based on what he considers his "fair judgement", what should stop person B from doing the same?

And what should indeed stop anyone from basing their justifications for violence on their "fair judgement"?

More likely, there are factors that constitute what you call "fair judgement", that determine whether one person's claim to it may be better than another's; principles. — Tzeentch

Indeed. In order to guide fair judgment we have education and law, training people in using fair judgment. That does not mean rote learning of context independent principles, it means evaluating the context we find ourselves in and handling the context appropriately. That is what learning means. Now of course there may be differences as to what an appropriate reaction is. The course of action society takes is to have these justification examined by a third person, even more trained and educated in weighing arguments and indeed judging the relative wight of principles.

To an extent we are forced to live in a society - a regrettable circumstance. The role we ascribe ourselves in that circumstance is one we choose voluntarily. Whether we choose to adopt its views of what constitutes justified violence is voluntary.

Now, there is an argument to be made here that society brainwashes individuals from a very young age into adopting its views. I'd agree with that, which is why I consider the non-consensual aspects of society to be highly problematic. — Tzeentch

I disagree, a lot depends on upbringing, learning, social environment etc. We are not free to rewrite the social contract. whenever we feel like it. However, society

Those things mean nothing to me. It is authority based on opinions. However many atrocities haven't been committed by individuals who made an appeal to past traditions or were under the false impression they were capable of fair judgement?

These things sound reasonable on paper, but the flaws become apparent when one is confronted with someone who has an entirely different frame of reference. — Tzeentch

Indeed! and you have the idea that you are capable of fair judgment based on principles you seem able to discern, however many would be disagreeing with you. You let nobody tell you otherwise though because that be societal influence trying to brainwash you...

As far as I am concerned that is perfectly acceptable. Our involvement in this affair is entirely involuntary, and thus inaction is an acceptable route to take if the alternative is unethical conduct. If our involvement is voluntary then we were foolish to begin with, and our forced choice between two evils is entirely our own mistake. — Tzeentch

Yes, that is what Kantian reasoning comes down to an where the achilles heel of such reasoning has been pointed out. It cannot make sense of the idea of special obligations. No friend of yours will choose your house. Your wife will not ask whether you like her dress, your children will not expect any kind of special treatment from you... I want to be able to be offered shelter by a friend. I expect them to lie for me if need be. The problem with this line of anti-social ethics is that you end up with a life that is solitary nasty brutish and short, exactly what we all strive to avoid... This line of thinking is entirely coherent, I grant you that, and entirely absurd.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see how any of what I said is condescending.

In written discussions it is not always easy to know whether the other side understands what logical path I am taking, which is why I wrote it out in full.

I can be uncompromising and blunt, but you'll have to take the fact that I am writing page-long replies to you as evidence that I value our conversation and your contribution to it. — Tzeentch

Sure, nothing wrong with uncompromising and blunt and I say that without any sarcasm. I may well have misread it. If so my apologies. I value your remarks and page long replies as well.

This is utterly subjective and based on opinion. It may sound reasonable at first glance, but completely falls apar — Tzeentch

To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch

t when we consider how many different interpretations there may be from the various terms you use here (plausible, proven, right, wrong, etc.). Those interpretations tend to be guided by merely what is desirable at the time; convenience.

You may think that is fine, but it leads to every action being justifiable, and ethics becoming meaningless via the slippery slope I have discussed.

I disagree. Also those terms which may be vague, gain their content from the way they are used in practical discussion and argument. It is not utterly subjective, it is intersubjective. We appeal to common usage of terms, common reason indeed. However not in the meaning you attach to it, deducible principles independent of context. The search has been on for centuries but in this absolutist guise it has been fruitless.

A. is of the opinion that stoning a married woman is necessary because she looked at another man. A is tasked with defending his course of action, and whatever not-entirely-hypothetical society A is a part of deems this a justifiable use of force.

If we stick to your line of reasoning, we cannot consider this unethical. It seems to boil down to, everything can justify violence as long as there's a society willing to accept it. — Tzeentch

No we do not need to accept that conclusion, but we have to work a little harder than just saying: "violence is unethical, you use violence against a married woman, therefore you act unethically". Actually the example shows the problem of your ethical system. Since all judgment is based on this one principle, you cannot make any difference between the police offiicer in my example and the man stoning his wife.

In fact Your ethics restricts you to only apply judgment to yourself and your own actions. Thinking for others is unethical. There is no reason for you to help this woman. Therefore in your system it is perfectly fine to sign an arms deal with just such a society. What we have to do is argue and try to convince this society that their law is unjust. then we have to try to find common ground and indeed look for principles, but a wholly different kind of principles. We will have to go about asking what the essence of law is, what does law do and what is its corner stone. I would say it is equal treatment. Are laws justified that make such a difference between man and woman. I would say it is against the nature of law to do so. Therefore I would try to convince the other of my arguments or at least try to convince my government not to sign an arms deal with such a country. The main difference is that for me ethics is only relevant when it is dialogical, discursive, argumentative. You hold on to a kind of monological ethics by which you can set our own moral compass. I do not see that as relevant because we are not on our own.

One would wish for this to be the case, but my previous example shows our reasonings not to be as common as hoped.

Here's another example: Kiri-sute gomen

The "right" to murder, based on a perceived affront.

What about witch burnings? What about pogroms? We could continue, but I think my point is clear.

I think our disconnect lies in that you seem to assume (but correct me if I am wrong) that average behavior of individuals must be ethical. That whatever societies agree on is acceptable, must be justified and ethical. — Tzeentch

Your point is clear and the same reasoning applies. We try to convince and argue and try to find common ground. And indeed, it pays off! In Japan no one has the right to murder anymore, witches live their lives in peace and their broomsticks are now tax deductible! Progroms have been eradicated in most countries and I can go on. That is not because Kant came along and told them, or because everyone just miraculously came to see the miracle of the categorical imperative.

To the contrary. Every person who understands they have no foot to stand on should steer clear from violence and impositions on others, lest they make others the victim of their ignorance. — Tzeentch

Yes and since there is no foot to stand on, you reach the conclusion that violence should not be stopped by countervailing force when it starts and we should allow ourselves and others to get killed in the name of ethics. I agree if everyone would see the wisdom in your words we would all be safe, but not everyone does.

Perfect it is most certainly not, but where do you get the idea that it keeps people from killing each other? Only a few decades ago mankind was a button-press away from killing, literally, everyone. We still are.

If the historical trend of ever more deadly warfare is to continue, the next war will be deadlier than World War II. — Tzeentch

our world in stats

Look especially at the homicide rates over time. They plummeted. Sure mass atrocities may still occur. we never know when a next more deadly war will happen. What we do know is that the categorical imperative will not prevent it, but communication and the great entwinement of the global world order just might.

That is an interesting discussion in its own right. Not only is it my view that such an individual exists in every one, I'm also considering that analyzing and reevaluating one's core beliefs as imposed by one's upbringing, social climate or state may be a prerequisite for being a moral agent. — Tzeentch

I agree with that sentiment, but examining them is something else than cutting them. I even so wholeheartedly agree that I consider the social climate, upbringing and bonds necessary for our emancipation as moral agents. That means that 'social brainwashing' as you name it, has its particular function as a moment of our emancipation.

Of course not. I know I am not perfect, which is exactly why I am proposing these things. It is interesting that you interpret my attempts to reconcile my conduct with my imperfection as a claim to being perfect. — Tzeentch

That is because the assumption of perfection is needed. You wish to base your ethics on absolute truth and so there must be a kind of truth to which you have privileged access. Or, at least, there is someone like you inside of everyone, but not nearly everyone, I daresay not nearly most, accept your conclusions. Perfection is maybe not the words, but you have to presume some sort of moral superiority above others.

Ok.... that was my longest PF post yet I think and that considering that I should be working. Ohh dear...

Nahhh, no worries. It wasn't criticism, it just made me smile because earlier in the threat I said the question needed specification on this point... :D I just found it funny to say: "now you see what happens!" It is actually a good debate I think so cheers to you for opening the thread.

See John, this whole debate would have been entirely avoided had you just specified the ethical system from which you asked your question. ;) I am not an ethicist, but ascribe to some sort of virtue ethics. Actually I draw on various ethical systems on a casuistic bases, they are great at providing plausible arguments. A strict deontologist will never be convinced by an equally strict utilitarian and otherwise. If there is one ethical maxim I hold on to is that one should never absolutize ethical systems because doing that leads to the exact contradictions you like to avoid.

To me those two cannot be seperated. That which is Good or right must be based on truth. That which is wrong must be based on falsehoods or delusions. Truth-seeking is therefore a vital part of ethics. — Tzeentch

And the truth is always temporary, facts of today will be overtaken by the science of tomorrow. Basing the right on truth only makes its foundation more shaky than when you just base in on the ' right' .

That would be an appeal to authority. Unless said person can back up their claims with reason, I would not put any value in any experience or authority on a subject they might have. — Tzeentch

No it is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to experience. You hold an all or nothing view. Either you have an unshakeable foundation or we have nothing to go on. However, in practice we do not have an unshakeable foundation and we still have guiding lights to go on, namely practice and experience. It is not authority based on nothing it is authority based on a past record of equitable and fair judgement. Not compared to some unshakable foundation but compared to plausible arguments.

Like you said, my view of ethics is dependent on there being some truth to be discovered, or common reasoning. However, we may never be sure of these things, which is why I am also against imposing one's views on others. One's ethics should concern oneself and one's own behavior in regards to others alone. Attempting to force one's views on others risks making them the victim of one's ignorance. — Tzeentch

Here your reasoning spirals wildly out of control. Common reasoning is not the same as some truth being discovered. I agree on common reasoning, that is the intersubjectivity criterion that you despises. I disagree with your search for fundamental ethical truths. And so since we are not sure of these things, no one's view can be imposed on others.... well so much for society than. Is placing traffic lights imposing the view of city planners on others? If ethics only concerns oneself it becomes meaningless when you do not also provide me some unshakable truth on which it can be based. How do I know which ethical maxims you hold when there is, as you admit no truth to base them on?

But yes, to put it clearly, my view is that some of the principles I have discussed so far are (potentially) fundamental and I try to back this up by showing how ignoring those principles leads to slippery slopes in which notions of right and wrong become meaningless and all violent behaviors can be justified. — Tzeentch

But I do not think they are so we do not have common ground, so there is no common principle, ergo no basis for our ethics. The problem with your slippery slope is you already assume we are at the bottom.

I think in that situation the police agent's use of violence was still unethical, even if it had desirable effects as well. He had to take a life; something which I consider highly undesirable. Considering his circumstances it is understandable, however his choices in life contributed to putting himself in a position where he may have to take a life. Nothing forced him to associate with a society in which it is normal to murder children, yet he did. — Tzeentch

His taking a life is regrettable, not unethical. He is forced in society, we all are. We are born here, raised here, we speak the language of our society. I am happy that he chose to put himself in that position, because others, me for instance, might be too hesitant and it would lead to more harm. Seems to me he was the right man at the right place. A cause for social celebration for celebration.

He could have kept his mouth shut. — Tzeentch

It is the common answer and it doesn't work. The murderer knows Kant is a Kantian so when everyone respects this maxim it is easy for the murderer to know the person is indeed in your house, otherwise you would have said something, saving life and limb by sending the murderer off to elsewhere. There might be one nice move to make, but it would need another maxim, namely one does not talk to murders. However that too, would fall to the objection that this ideal world is totally removed from the real one.

At risk of repeating myself, this is akin to excusing violence whenever one or others deem it convenient. At most it serves as a explanation as to why individuals choose violence, but not as a limitation on it.

The problem with this line of reasoning is clear; person A deems it fine to commit violence against person B because person A is of the opinion there's a bad situation that needs to be resolved. — Tzeentch

You have a condescending tone which is not based on the strength of your argument, I dislike that, Anyway, no it is not the same as excusing violence whenever it is convenient. One must make an argument for this use of violence and that argument must be plausible in the eyes of others who have proven to be able to discern right arguments from wrong arguments. A. might be of the opinion that the use of force was necessary and then A. would have the task of defending his course of action. If A. says " well violence was justified because that ugly head of his constitutes a bad situation" we will tell him he committed a wrong. His ugly head does not provide a justification for violence since A. you basically do not commit violence out of a whim and B. even if he is god ugly the harm he suffered stands in no proportion to the harm you suffered.

Every violent group action is justified.

This isn't ethics. It is a template for atrocity. — Tzeentch

No it is not and that is precisely because there does exist some kind of common reasoning. Exactly the one you seem to base your argument on and deny at will. In no society will " he had an ugly head" fly as an excuse for murder. Other things might, witchcraft might. Well than it is up to others to demonstrate there is no such thing as witchcraft and that killing someone on that basis is the same as killing an innocent man. No society condones the killing of the innocent except in certain situations such as war. The point is, people can an do reason with each other about what is right and wrong. Again your either
/ or dychotomy. Or we have some fundamental principle (which we do not have as you earlier conceded) or we have nothing. In your view nothing is left and so it is every man for himself to determine what is ethical. A recipe for a war of all against all, not for an ethical society.

More likely, there are factors that, in your view, can excuse violence. Self-defense for example, so it would probably be more useful to move on to those critical factors, because this intersubjectivity line of reasoning doesn't work and indeed any line of reasoning that depends on opinion rather than a fundamental truth or principle ends this way. — Tzeentch

Just saying it doesn't work does not mean it doesn't work. Demonstrate it with either argument or empiric facts. Facts are stacked against you, because we are doing it in this way now for ages. It might not be perfect, but it does keep people from killing each other.

That is a weak excuse! One cannot control the goings-on of the world, but one can control one's own behavior and whether one lives in accordance to ideals is a product of one's will to do so. The problem is that we often lack the desire to do so, or doing so conflicts with our desires. — Tzeentch

This is what deontology comes down to and I think it exposes one of its core weaknesses. It assumes a kind of free floating individual, unattached to social bonds.

I don't think it's ethical for society, or indeed anyone, to make me the victim of its own imperfections. — Tzeentch

The problem is you think you are perfect. I am happy it does make everyone the victim of its own imperfection, i.e. place traffic lights at highways, coordinates aid relief and indeed, tasks a judiciary and a police force with the task of fighting crime and insure an ordered society.

I disagree. What was unethical 1,000 years ago is unethical now, and vice versa. We can't cherry pick based on what is convenient, normal or accepted. Burning witches at the stake was never ethical, even if it was accepted at points in history. — Tzeentch

Maybe I was imprecise with my reference to truth Ethics does not deal with true and false but with right or wrong. True and false might be context independent (though I am not sure I agree with that either) but right or wrong is context dependent. I am not saying that wat matters is opinion I am saying that what matters is context. Using violence to save a friend might be right or wrong dependent on context, not dependent on historical epoch. When violence is used, the violence is presumed to be wrong, unless plausible argument can be given in regard to why it was right in the case at hand. To discern right from wrong we need people experienced in doing so. Because something might be right or wrong, but if we cannot tell right from wrong, it does not matter a tidbit.

It is opinion, then. This will get us nowhere when we try to talk about ethics, because opinions are so different between individuals, time periods and locations. If we accept this approach, it would be more appropriate to talk about customs or culture rather than ethics. — Tzeentch

I do not think opinions are so different between individuals. Actually ethics, also in the absolutist variation you propose is only possible if opinions are not that different, or at least we must presuppose that by the light of common reason we can discern ethical principles. Actually, common reason must be more an assumption of yours than it needs to be mine. For you it is necessary that we can mentally at every age discern ethical principles by deduction alone. For me, only a fallibilist conception that we can find common ground is enough.

Lets hear it! — Tzeentch

Well, if I am a police agent and I see a man shooting with a machine gun in a school aiming to kill teachers and pupils and I take him down with my fire arms, than I am praised and awarded and rightly so. My violence was necessary to stop further blood shed. I think even Kant would agree: We have an imperfect duty to intervene in this case. We cannot will people who inflict violence on the innocent to keep committing these kinds of acts (Kant was a notable proponent of the death penalty).

Another famous example, which brought Kant himself into trouble is the murderer at the door scenario. In Kant's scheme lying is categorically wrong just like in yours violence is. When confronted with the question of whether it is ok to lie when a friend hides inside your house from a murderer and the murderer asks the straightforward question whether this friend is in the house, Kant was forced to say that lying would not be appropriate in this case. For ages now Kantian scholars are trying to save the moralist from Konigberg from himself.

Ok, I can get behind that, but there's a principle hidden in that last sentence.

But why would we want a world free of violence if we have all these opinions telling us it's perfectly fine to use in certain situations?

Not too long ago all the superpowers in the world were spending trillions on developing bombs that could wipe the Earth clean of life, all in the name of self-defense and "necessary violence". Doesn't it seem our leniency towards practical considerations is contrary to our goals? On what basis should we allow ourselves such leniency? — Tzeentch

There is a principle indeed, but principles in my line of reasoning work different then in yours. For you they are categorical prohibitions, principles work like rules. For me they are not, principles work as guidelines, leading lights, but by no means the only ones. I think you are mistaken about the nature of principles, which is actually common and reminds me of the debate between the legal philosophers HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. The intervention by Dwokin was a very timely one and brought attention to the function of principles in law.

Violence is fine to use in certain situations because the situations are bad and need to be resolved. In an ideal world there are no bad situations so no need for violence. However we do not live in an ideal world we live in an actual one. That does not mean we should not strive to live in an ideal world and ban violence as much as possible.

I don't require such rules. Who does, exactly? You? Society? The world? Coincidentally, it seems they who require such rules are usually those who stand most to gain. — Tzeentch

Society needs such rules, we call it law. judges certainly need such rules because they need to know whether to convict someone when he saves the life of someone else using proportional force to prevent an unlawful, imminent attack on another person. Law currently stipulates no conviction is in order in such cases. Rightly so, I think.

Lastly, what stops one from bringing the ideal into the real? Desires that we dress up as "practical considerations". Desire is what stops us from applying principles consistently. One may apply them to feel good about oneself, until it conflicts with one's desires, and then one may seek for a pretense as to why that is acceptable. That is not ethics. That's doing whatever the hell one wants whenever it's convenient.

Sometimes one must (attempt to) build a tower, to rise above the mud. — Tzeentch

Well there might be so many things that stop us. However, making the best and enemy of the better seems to throw away the baby with the bathwater (no worries I am out of trite expressions ;;) ) Ethics is the search for principles, but the application of them is a question or practical wisdom. It is also required when one wants to build towers on muddy soil.