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.

I find neither are a good basis for ethics. Majority opinions have been terribly wrong in their collective judgement countless times. — Tzeentch

You confuse intersubjectivity with majority opinion. Not every vote counts in this forum as not everyone has the moral maturity or argumentative acumen to value and weigh the reasons set forth. You may not find it a good basis for ethics, but it is the only basis we got in a real world instead of an ideal one.

Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning. — Tzeentch

In that sense we do not have such fundamental truths. All truth is temporary, especially those concerning the social world and ethics is social, ethics is about the way we comport ourselves to that which is 'other'. Therefore it takes two to tango.

What context do you propose, then? Whenever our subjective judgement deems it desirable to commit violence? Whenever a lot of people agree it is desirable to commit violence? I find none of these particularly convincing. — Tzeentch

Whether the arguments that I propose for me committing violence are sound or not, meaning that they are understandable and plausible for others who have seen enough of such situations to be able to weigh them and imagine what they would do were they in my shoes. My outlook on ethics seems rather Aristotelian in that sense.

That does not mean I absolutely shun your preference for 'principles' in the sense that you like to use them. However they have to be applicable to the real world. Say you and I agree that 'violence is unethical', what can it mean? In your view it means that every use of violence is unethical. I find that unconvincing because I can citer many instances in which it seems that violence is not only the right thing to do, it seems even the necessary thing to do in such a situation. If we than say "ahhh but it is unethical!", then ethics simply becomes a system of restraint, kind of like the place of sin in religion.

What it means to say that 'violence is unethical' in a way that it can be informative and yet retain some of its context inependent quality is to say that "we should strive for a world without violence, because in an ideal world violence is not necessary". In that sense I would agree with you. In practice however we need rules to allow for violence when necessary. In a sense this ethical discussion mirrors he perennial problem of metaphysics how to cross over from the ideal into the real.

You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority. — NOS4A2

We have an intuition of right and wrong, we feel pleasure we feel pain. However, we will have to teach a child to share the things he gets with others, we teach kindness, we teach also how to punish in moderation. Both ethics and law are not learned by just being in the world. Which is good or I'd be out of a job.

I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention. — NOS4A2

Great, sure any amount of people can do it right, like the KKK, marvelous at determining what is right. angry mobs in general, such judge of character. Do tell, what innate wisdom has granted each individual man the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to meat out fair and just punishment? In my nick of the words, we feel that a law study and then an extra three year education is on order.

The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity. — NOS4A2

And who defines what justice is? Probably in your case the belove framers... why anyone would consider the word of 18th century well to do farmers as gospel is beyond me, anyway, different topic. Problem is that if the state likes to show it cares so much about human life and dignity, why does it act in flagrant and open contradiction of it? The state sends mixed signals. Categorically unethical that is ;) No, simply not warranted on whatever ethical maxim there is. There might be only one, the crudest one, the satisfaction of the brutish masses.

The issue is that in this example, one is using their own subjective judgement to determine what is merited. By doing so, one must also accept when another uses their subjective judgement to do the same, unless one wishes to argue their judgement is somehow more special than others.

What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history. — Tzeentch

No. I use my subjective judgment and I am prepared to defend it in front of an intersubjective forum of people who get to judge my actions and I provide reasons for it in full conviction that they will agree with me. It is not my subjective judgment that is key here, but intersubjective judgment. That is why the question is important that Proof would accept my reasoning or not for not saving him. (sorry 180 Proof you are under constant threat of death in my examples, fortunately it is only an example.) I use my judgment in the service of people (or other creatures) not ethical maxims.

What you end up with is a world in which people constantly use violence against one another, and wonder why others are doing the same to them. That's what we see throughout history. — Tzeentch

No, what we see throughout history is the constant marginalisation of violence as a means to settle interpersonal conflict.

The point of an ethical principle is that it is context independent.

Like I said to ↪john27, if we need to ask why following ethical principles is even important at all, then this will not be very constructive. An ethical discussion presupposes they matter to us. — Tzeentch

Yes principles matter to us, but I disagree that ethical principles are or can be context independent. Principles are rules of thumb, accepted wisdom that holds true most of the time, but not all the time. They guide our courses of action, not prescribe them.

Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. I'm sure you will try to find grounds to disagree, and that is why we're here. — Tzeentch

Yes, but the disagreement lies not in challenging the notion that if there are categorical principles, than violence may be considered categorically unethical. I argue on the other hand that there are no context independen principles, or at least that context may require us to act not in accordance to a principle. Therefore it may be ethical to act in disregard of the principle that violence is unethical. i.e. to commit violence.

So the state responds by showing disregard for human life and dignity.... great.

I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. — NOS4A2

Under what principle, context dependent or otherwise would the death penalty be justified?

↪Tobias If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right". — Tzeentch

Yes, but that is a big if. I do not think that violence can turn into a rigt whenever it suits me or my whims. My desire must be one that itself aims at the greater good. Is that hard to establish? Yes sure. That is why I would answer negative to John's latter question, is violence ethical when it is used to steer a society in a good direction. However not all situations have that degree of difficulty. the weighing of interests between Proof's life and John's broken nose is a pretty easy one to make. (provided that proof is not threatening to blow up a city or whatever). Why should I refrain from making this calculation and acting accordingly, in the name of some kind of pie in the sky context independent ethical maxim?

No, but my wrong was the right thing to do. That might make it a right.

I imagine how this conversation would go. "Sorry Proof, I have to let John slit your throat from ear to ear... I could nog John in the face I could, would knock him out cold, but that would be kinda unethical, I am sure you would understand right, being a long term member of PF and all"

You think 180 Proof would understand my reasoning?

Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable it does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is.

Even in the case of self-defense, its use must not be regarded as a victory, but as a personal defeat. — Tzeentch

What if the desires of the other are unethical and my violence stops him from bringing these desires into effective action?

No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? — john27

Ahhh, see that is a different question and will indeed beget different answers. None of mine yet as I have to get back to work.

I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal, and sometimes justifiable not necessarily ethical. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical? — john27

Same answer. When your threaten to slit Proof's' throat from ear to ear with the flick knife you are wielding and I punch you in the face disarming you, then my 'act of control' amounts to inflicting injury aka violence, maybe even public violence if this were to happen in the street. Is this justified? Legally it is. (I know of no legal system which would convict in this case). Is it ethical? I think saving Proof''s life is an ethical action. hitting you might be unethical in normal circumstances but it was the appropriate means to a right end. In my book this would be a form of ethical violence.

How could we complete/reform the question? — john27

Well first I think you need an indication beyond yes and no. Is violence always ethical, sometimes ethical, never ethical, now it becomes a yes or no question as if there are two flavours possible, yes violence is ethical, no it is not. Whereas here I think midddle grounds are possible. I think the responses would also be batter if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" The problem here is that people will jsut tell you there own observations but as you yourself pointed out already, many meanings are still unclear, for instance the difference between justifiable and ethical.

s justifiable and ethical the same thing? — john27

Well justifiable is a legal term, so when violence is justified depends on the system of law. Whether violence is ethical depends on what ethical theory one follows. "is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. This depends on one's system of ethics. A utilitarian might for instance argue in favour of torturing a terrorist in case of a ticking time bomb scenario, whereas a Kantian would argue against.

I tend to take a rather casuistic approach in such matters, because I do not believe in context independent ethical systems and generally take recourse to law, a field that has more experience in casustic conflict resolution than ethics. Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Well in general it is not, it hurts people. Generally it is not nice to hurt people. It can be ethical, when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.

There is no way we could keep the mass of humanity alive, that fills the earth today, without technology. We would not have growing populations of long-lived people without technology. We could not have the economies that enable us to provide a decent standard of living for so many people without technology.
However, technology is not science, and technology without wisdom can destroy life on this planet.
We need more than education for technology. We need a classical/liberal education as well so we have the wisdom to use our technology well. If we can achieve this before it is too late is questionable. This is going to be a tight horse race and either we will enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny, or we won't. It depends on how well the masses are educated. With the media we have today, there is no excuse for doing as poorly as we have done. — Athena

It is a funny thing. Athena is also my favorite Greek goddess and if I will ever have a daughter I will lobby to give her the name Athena. I do see the value in a good classical education which I too have enjoyed. Therefore, I am not attacking democracy or enlightenment values. I look at these things from a sociological perspective, which type of society do I see emerging and what lines of argument do I see 'winning' in the argumentative arena. In your OP you called for a more ecological worldview, at least it seemed to me and you used arguments which you seemed to hint at argument which you also see (rather crude) environmentalists make. "Our technology is upsetting the natural balance of life and in order to avert destruction we have to use technology differently, namely in the service of the environment and restore the balance with nature that was present in the past". I do not know if you were going along that path, but it seemed like it.

You do argue in a similar vein as they do. They of course have the best intentions with this world, as you undoubtedly also do. The problem is that they often use terms that remain vague or obscure. For instance 'wisdom'. sure, we need wisdom, what can be wrong with that? But what does it mean in this context? You say science is not technology, but they are often intertwined. The vaccine against corona is a cooperation between the science of biology and the technology to use this science in an applied way. One is not seperable from the other. Education is another term you keep vague. Yes, a liberal education, but what will be in it? Will we tell the tale of how we managed to increase longevity eradicate hunger and poverty from large sections of the world, or will we tell the tael of ecological degradation, nuclear warheads and the eradication of cultures and biodiversity?

My warning to you is, maybe you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want democracy and humanist values and you complain that we have now 'become like Hitler Germany', but especially the manichean battle against chaos you mention was a trope for Hitler Germany. The relationship between National socialist thought and green thought is far from clear. You equate national socialism with blind technology, but especially that is what a thinker like Martin Heidegger characerized the US in the 1930s of. In Hitler Germany he saw a 'third way', a rejuvenation, against technology! If anything Hitler Germany was not anti-Green. So the problem is, even though you want the good for the world and you think your points are helping it come about, you might end up with something that is not so amenable to democracy and enlightenment at all.

Well, fate might dictate that I die tomorrow because (parts of) a satellite came down from the sky. That was not in my or anyone's plans, actually a rather rare and random freak accident, yet fated. Free will is even more disorderly. Suddenly someone might decide to change plans and crash the airpane in which I was flying into a mountain range. Again not part of anyone's plans but the pilots and probably causing massive disruption to all kinds of neatly ordered time tables. Very disorderly this free will is.

Personally, I do not believe in free will, read intention, nor do I believe in fate. It all seems much less orderly to me. — boagie

Fate is not necessarily orderly. Free will seems very disorderly... Even less orderly? You believe you might be a pink fluffy elephant named FuFu tomorrow?

If you don't believe me, look at the contents of your hard drive on your computer. Does not the signed copy of your mortgage agreement occupy kilobytes of space on your drive? — Harry Hindu

If that be true than whether the morgage is stipulated in Word or in PDF would make a difference to the motrgage, since it will occupy a diffferent amount kilobytes of space on my hard drive. However, it does not. Likewise if Banno's morgtgage would somehow be eradicated from his harddrive and from the hardrive of the company he has a mortgage from, that would somehow destroy Banno's obligation to pay. That however is false.

Using these definitions of object and space, objects and space would be the medium of change. — Harry Hindu

I could subscribe to this though. Every change has a certain material aspect. Even if I conclude a mortgage, it will have some effect on the pathways engraved in my mind. That oes not mean a mortgage is that pathway or that change is a property of space.

I'm more after a humanistic positivity, something that stems from ourselves, something we can relate to. Kind of like an atheist dream: to live efficiently and well, even if there is no purpose. — john27

Yes, but is that not what environmentalism might offer? If you are after a rejuvenation of the enlightenment spirit of progres, then I think you are fighting the rear guard battle as we say in the Netherlands. It is twilight of the enlightened idols my friend.

Well, what kind of positivity do you need? I think the ecological shift brings great possibilities and threats. One of the questions I am grappling with is the question whether ecological thinking can provide new ideals that can give us a unified sense of purpose. To me ecology is metaphysics, 'deus sive natura', but not thought from God as the main point of departure, but nature, natura sive deus. Ecological awareness may well lead to a new kind of relationship between man and his surroundings, much like Athena describes in the OP and present in the thought of indigenous peoples. They are all the rage nowadays in academia. So it might well lead to a more kind world, hopefully.

What I am suspicious of is using the old Crhistian or Manichean tropes to think of this relations. It is all fire and brimstone, war, and if we are lucky, mercy by a force which we cannot tame. These types of thought are cause of all this mishap, not the answer I think.

If we don't want birds to fall from the sky, seas to devour, superstorms to rage, sweet water to taste bitter, unworldly screaming to be heard from within, the last trees to burn, the dark to enter daylight, and the light to ruin the night, the pace must be lowered this very moment. It will be too late tomorrow. Zeus' creation from Kaos will return to the Kaos it came from prematurely. Zeus won't give a damn. He will only laugh he created such stupidity and try again. — Raymond

Oh dear. Did anybody else notice how the descriptions of environmental degradation mirror the descriptions of the biblical plagues from the deluge, to the fall of Sodom to the apocalypse? If only we turn away and repent... there will need to be a vanguard of the truthful, the spirited to guide us from our wicked ways and we might still be spared. This type of environmentalism is modern day soteriology.

Not necessarily no? Ataraxia is just the condition of accepting this very situation, aka, amor fati, the skeptic is fated to ask these questions and has come to grips with this predicament.

Well, it is 180's description so he is in a better position, but I agree with him and I do see a certain sadness here. One knows that there is no solid foundations on which to build our assumptions of the world and worse, one also knows that the other does not know as well. There is therefore no hope of redemption. You can ask every wise man or woman, but you will only end up asking questions and trouncing him or her. The victory is a pyrrhic one though because the certainty one seeks is not there.

Sceptic: I know that I am ignorant of most knowable things, whatever I do know most of which I'm not certain of and, frustratingly, even my few certainties could still be false – ergo, with sufficient grounds, I question myself and others who do not. (re: "a sad Socrates")

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine") — 180 Proof

:100: :up:

I am a bit puzzled with the way this topic is treated. I feel it is very much couched in the metaphysics of old, the nominalists and medieval realists, the rationalists and empiricists etc. I think Kant convincingly cleared up the matter when he deduced the categories of thought. The latter idealists refined these ideas considerably, but the gist is the same. Change, as well as space and time are categories. They are the fundamental structures that have to be presupposed if we are able to experience a 'world' at all. Relating them to each other, as if one is substantial and the other is a property seems to me mistaken. It is like asking: what is the quantity of time? Of course we think temporally and quantitatively and therefore we can devise a clock, but time as such has no quantity. there not multiple times or multiple spaces. Every hour is still time and every room is still space.

In the same way we think of substance and properties, and the relation between each other but do not for a moment think that these notions have any meaning outside of frame of reference. They are needed for us to think at all, operators, but I never saw a property as such, I only saw some definite properties. I also never saw substance as such, I only saw definite substances.

Change therefore is not a property, not of space, not of anything else. Change is a category of thought. I would even argue it is a-priori since change is not something learned by being experienced, but change is what experience is, aka it makes experience possible.

Call me daft if you want Arne, but you'll have to explain this to me. In my usage 2 stands for two distinct things with spatial separation between them, and 3 stands for three spatially separated things, etc.. Therefore, contrary to what you say, numerals seem especially useful when they refer to things with spatial existence. And I really don't see how they would be at all useful (except for the purpose of deception) to refer to things without spatial existence, i.e. fictitious things. — Metaphysician Undercover

That does not seem very correct, or at least it seems only a way to imagine something. such as numbers. 2 and 2 is 4 independent of there being 2 things and 2 other things. In the same way that in the syllogism If p. then Q, p. Thererfore Q, does not have to be rephrased as: "If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal". Quantity and space are not relatable to each other because they are both necessary categories. (I believe that for Kant space was a category of the intuition and quantity of thought, but that does not matter and I am not very certain about it and the picture I paint is more Hegelian than Kantian anyway). Maybe I missed something, or maybe the categories got jettisoned by the analytics in concert with the phenomenologists...

I think Zeus's concern, that with the technology of fire we would discover all technologies and then rival with the gods, forgetting the wisdom of the gods and thinking ourselves the ultimate power and destroying nature to satisfy ourselves, was a justified concern. We have confused technology with science and now have technological smarts but not wisdom. — Athena

What you describe is I think currently being developed. It has always been there in Western thought actually but it has not always been dominant. Schwarz and Thompson, two economists and sociologists define it as an 'egalitarian perspective', Sociologist Aaron Wildavsky defines it as a perspective of harmony. Traditional enlightnement values, values we still live with today proritize control of nature through technological means and progress through economic an cultural development.

The harmony perspective on the other hand is the one embraced by ecology. The sociologist and ecologist Anna Bramwell calls much of ecological reasoning and environmentalism 'manichean', presenting a battle between good nature and evil techno-science. Much of philosophy now is busy transllating philosophical ideas to the realm of the environment and to our relationship between man and nature. Martin Heidegger's essay on technology is an early example. Then came Hans Jonas 'The principle of responsibility'.

You might want to delve in ecological thought for answers to your question. I do think currently that we gradually see a shift in perspective, from individualist to egalitarian. However, do not have many illusions about this shift, like every revolution there will be a lot of struggle. Ecology is not necessary friendly to your enlightenment values and your love for democracy.

Hi @Reformed Nihilist, good to see you :) I would take an approach rooted in the history of philsoophy, which other posters also have done in this trhead. Philosophy started with the question what was really real, what, if all the fleeting and temporal was stripped of from this world, would remain. Parmenides argued for an unchanging abstract whole, Heraclitus argued that what was real was change itself.

This discussion, only fragmented delivered to us set the stage, because we have a paradox here. If what is really really real is an unchanging hole than why does everything exhibit one quality, namely that of change. If movement itself is realy real, how is movement possible withou something fixed relative to which there is movement? Philosophy has tried to come to grips with that paradox, Plato's dualism, Aristotle's attempt at reconciliation in the 'this here', the medieval philosophers who turned to God as the source of that which moves and Descarte's turn to the subject. Certainty is one of those concepts that emerged in trying to get to grips with this paradox because when we have something certain we could define every other thing, concept or experience relative to it. - Whether we were dealing with things, concepts or experiences, was itself dependent on the epoch in the history of philosophy one finds itself in. - Subject and object, essence and substance, phenomena and noumena, all those terms emerge from that endeavour.

As Joshs and Ciceronianus pointed out, philosophy moves and changes. I do not know about the analytics, but the continentals have by and large abandoned the quest for certainty. Joshs would say it was Nietzsche probably, I would say it was Hegel, who lay this quest to rest. There is no 'thing in itself', there is only 'the movement of the concept', the articulation of ever new and according to Hegel more sophisticated ways to try to resolve the ancient paradox. Partly building on this notion, partly out of a counter reaction to it, phenomenology emerged. We have learned something however from this history. Like you state for science, truth in philosophy depends on an "intricate webs of probabilistic relationships". Truth is 'preliminary', the best we have at the time, 'vorläufig' as they say in German, it stakes its claim in advance and has to retract when something better comes along.

That does not mean this preliminary truth can be put forward willy nilly, it has to be acceptable according to the rules of the game played at the time, the 'economy of truth'. Some articulations are taboo, some just fail in the conffrontation with our bodily experience, some get forgotten because we are busy dealing with something else. Truth making, meaning making, is a social affair and the second order rules of argumentation decide what is accepted as true and under what conditions.

I find pure materialist physics very unconvincing, worse than unconvincing - meaningless. But this is not the place to go into that. — T Clark

I was agreeing with them on this point:

On the other hand, some people understand our lack of free will to be dependent on a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. — T Clark

The lack of free will follows from a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. If one ascribes to a purely materistic ontology than accepting the lack of free will should follow from that premise. This type of metaphysics though relegates human experience to the realm of the 'unreal', only the third person perspective decides what is really really real. It is a metaphysical position. I am not saying I also ascribe to it. I do not think we are very far apart, if at all on this point.

Which of these do we take into account? The ones you and I are talking about are the medical and social forces I discussed. On the other hand, some people understand our lack of free will to be dependent on a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. — T Clark

I agree with them. Phenomenonologically, or maybe less controversially, experentially we do experience freedom of choice. We only do not experience it when under certain meical and social influences. The question is whether this first person experience of free will is illusory, or somehow contrary to the metaphyscial assumptions we accept. Criminal law takes the first person perspective, I experience free will, so assume you do too. Neurology for instance, takes a third person perspective, and accepting basic materialist metaphysics, tells us it does not exist. Criminal law though takes the circumstances that we also accept in our every day eistence into account. It will tell you it does not go into metaphysical assumptions about the nature of free will. I argue though it tacitly accepts the existence of free will as an absolute presupposition.

@SophistiCat I took a very straightforward interpretation of free will as my point of departure. There are others of course. The most sophisticated I have seen is the compatibiism of P.F. Strawson. I do feel they dodge the existential question though: do 'I' influence my life, or is all my choice in fact an illusion.

I think there are situations when people clearly are not in control of their actions, e.g. schizophrenia with delusions and hallucinations. — T Clark

Certainly and in those cases we cannot hold people account at all. This means we may take 'measures' against them, expedient actions out of social concerns such as forced care in a mental institution. We may not punish them in the proper sense, i.e. cause them harm because we resent the choices they made. (Dutch legal theory makesa difference between 'measures' and 'punishment', which is helpoful here. It does not mean measures are necessarily milder. Being locked up potentially indefinately in a mental health institution is of course onerous to the perpetrator, the rationale is different though.

I was thinking of this when I started this discussion - I've read about jurisdictions where mitigating factors; e.g. childhood abuse, poverty, hardship; can not be be brought up during the trail, but they can be considered during the penalty phase when punishment is determined. This would be especially applicable for cases where the death penalty is under consideration. — T Clark

Many jurisdictions take the circumstances of the perpetrator into account when meeting out punishment. Gradually in criminal law attention has shifted from purely reagrding the act to regarding the actor. Many people recognise that in some situations we are so pyschologically strained that we cannot think clearly. The problem is that it is not very consistent. It recognises that some circumstances influence your choice, but that that choice is then 'compromised' to some degree. It does not entertain the idea that people have no chocie at all to begin with, because they have no free will.