Thus, I see the person with neurosis to often slip through the cracks of society, suffering silently. It would mean they are isolated, not understood, and perpetually in their own world. Most people throw out terms like "see someone", "cognitive-behavioral therapy", "medications", etc. Much of these are external ways of trying to deal with something that is very idiosyncratic and internal to the person who is experiencing the condition. — schopenhauer1

Neurosis or neuroticism... The difference doesn't matter that much. There is certainly a difference between the major psychoses (like bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia) and merely neurotic habits. Needing to check the stove, the faucets, the locked door, and the lights several times before one can leave the house is annoying to one's self (and others) but it is hardly life-threatening. Dealing with mild OCD isn't that difficult; more entrenched and severe OCD can be difficult to overcome.

Whether neurotic behavior, or neuroticism, rises to the the definition of "mental illness" or not, it is a significant factor in life outcomes. Isolation, depression, anxiety, high levels of emotional arousal (like anger) indirectly affect longevity, physical health, productivity, relationships, and so on.

I view personality as a combination of genetic determined traits, traits developed from infancy on up, shaped by good and/or bad experiences, given form by one's embodiment, one's milieu, and so on. By the time one reaches adulthood, the personality one has become is pretty much fixed. It has not hardened like concrete, but it isn't soft reshapeable clay, either.

If one can make significant changes in one's personality, I don't think it can be done without substantial changes in one's environment. IF one's family or relationship is a very negative factor, then an exit from that family or relationship is probably necessary. IF work is driving one crazy (bad jobs can do that) then one needs to leave that job. A well-trained and skilled therapist will be helpful, and therapy should have a long duration--like a year or 50 hours.

"Therapy means change, not adjustment." The difficulty shouldn't be soft-pedaled. It's hard, and it might take a crisis-kind of event to make the changes.

Perhaps Bitter Crank has something interesting to add? — schopenhauer1

Probably nothing very helpful.

There is a distinction between "neurosis" and "neuroticism", the former affecting one's life more than the latter. Also, "neurosis" is more of a psychoanalytic term than a medical one.

In basic terms, neurosis is a disorder involving obsessive thoughts or anxiety, while neuroticism is a personality trait that does not have the same negative impact on everyday living as an anxious condition. In modern non-medical texts, the two are often used with the same meaning, but this is inaccurate.

Neuroticism is considered a personality trait rather than a medical condition.
Neuroticism is a long-term tendency to be in a negative or anxious emotional state. It is not a medical condition but a personality trait. People often confuse this with neurosis.

Five traits make up the five-factor model of personality:

Neuroticism
extraversion
agreeability
conscientiousness
openness.

This model is used in personality evaluations and tests across a wide range of cultures.

Speaking for my self, I have experienced neurosis (depression, anxiety) and have had a fairly high level of neuroticism. For the last 8 years, I have experienced a sharp shift away from neuroticism. I have become less irritable, more tolerant, less anxious, more contented. I have felt much less depressed and anxious, but whether that is a result of declining neuroticism or effective medication, isn't clear.

liliputs — TheMadFool

Tragically, I can not congratulate you for being the first person to use "Lilliput" on the Philosophy forum. You did not capitalize this proper noun, and you misspelled it in two ways -- it has two 'L's and there is only one Lilliput. It's a place, like Tierra del Fuego. What you were reaching for and failed to grasp was "Lilliputians", the 6" high occupants of Lilliput. It's so painful.

If you stay after school and write "Lilliputians live in Lilliput" 100 times on the blackboard you will make me feel better. By the way, Gulliver's Travels have been previously referenced.

Perhaps Bitter Crank has something interesting to add? — schopenhauer1

I would, but I'm having a neurotic crisis. It's TheMadFool's fault -- he misspelled Lilliput. Everything was just fine until I noticed his egregious error. Had he spelled it correctly, or had I not noticed his post I would not be so terribly mentally disheveled right now.

This trauma will require bed rest. It's 12:52 a.m., so a good time to retire.

practically, I am not convinced it would be worth the Civil War that would inevitably erupt — ZhouBoTong

Exactly. There are any number of great ideas that will die in the cradle.

"Ideally" we would not have the kind of economy where vital goods were under the control of private individuals whose motives were monetary. The major pharmaceutical companies directors are "not interested" in research and development for new antibiotics because there just aren't enough repeat sales for high profits. Better to invent a drug for conditions which will be required for decade--like blood pressure, high cholesterol, glaucoma, and so on.

In a more reasonable economy, the government would quite sensibly say to the drug companies, "What do you mean -- 'you are not interested in new antibiotics'? Either you "get interested pretty damn quick" or it's off with your head!" In an ideal economy, pharmaceutical researchers would focus on established needs rather than profit.

It will probably take a civil war to get from "for profit production" to "for need production".

Restorative and/or redistributive justice is a desirable approach. But it is difficult to apply restoration to really major criminal acts. There are many environmental crimes that have been committed, but the effects are so pervasive that restorative justice is difficult to imagine. Exposing workers to asbestos after it was known that such exposure caused disease is criminal, but beyond bankrupting the companies (Johns Manville was bankrupted and later reorganized) what can reasonably be done?

It's a civil war inducing problem. The foundation of corporate America is "limited liability". The stockholders of a company are not liable for wrong-doing (or negligence, carelessness, disaster, collapse, etc.) by the company. They are 'legally safe'. Stripping protection from legal liability for the behavior of one's source of wealth would cause corporations to be a hell of a lot more careful, but... civil war again.

Nobody from the company went to jail for the the people killed in Bhopal, India. An event at a Union Carbide pesticide plant (surrounded by a neighborhood of about 600,000 people) on 12/2/1984 released 40 tonnes of toxic methyl isocyanate gas, a pesticide. About 3,700 were killed immediately; more died in the following months and years. As many as 15,000 people may have bee killed (if one includes delayed fatal diseases caused by exposure to the poison).

Adequate restorative justice for so much death and damage is difficult to imagine. I'm not sure what sort of punitive justice would be adequate, but it seems like a thorough-going transfer of wealth from the company and stockholders would be a good start.

The point of severe retributive justice is to insure that a person committing a capital crime doesn't, and can't, re-offend.

For a corporation severe retributive punishment serves the same purpose: to make sure that agents who operated the corporation can not again engage in conspiracies which caused great harm to large numbers of people.

One of the teams prosecuting Purdue said that it was essential that the Purdue company be dissolved and the Sackler Family stripped of its wealth. The reason, he said, is that we need to make sure that Purdue and the Sacklers don't just move their operation overseas and continue to do to people in the third world what they have done to people in the United States.

The Sacklers / Purdue conducted a particularly cynical operation--NOT in the production of opiates, but in the marketing, promotion, and distribution of Opiates. Drug distributors know about how much opiate drugs will normally be purchased in a given county. If the amount sold is 5, 10, or 20 times the normal amount, it is probably because somebody is freely writing opiate Rx. Sure enough: some "pain clinics" were producing an extraordinary volume of opiate sales.

Above board doctors do not normally over-supply patients with opiates, for several reasons. One is that opiates may be used for suicide. Two, the opiates are easy to sell on the street. Three is that patients who take opiates for an extended period of time (needed or not) are likely to be addicted. Fourth, and not the least reason, is for recklessly handing out narcotic Rx a doctor may lose his license to practice.

A fair amount of corruption has to be in place for the drug producer, distributor, clinic, doctor, and druggist to be able to move very large quantities of narcotic drugs. We can rest assured that where opiate overdoses are resulting in sharp increases in ODs, the problem is stacked up several layers deep.

The Sackler family (owners of Purdue) were the beneficiaries of the company's (family's) pursuit of profit. They are multi-billionaires. Yes, they should be punished by stripping them of their ill-gained wealth.

HOWEVER: The Sackler family didn't personally push drugs onto potential and already addicted people. Quite a few doctors (some operating out of store-front "pain clinics") are accessories. So are insurance companies. So are distributors. They too should be subject to punishment.

I'm not at all opposed to the use of narcotics for the relief of pain. The stuff works for many types of pain.

I'm not a physician or nurse or medical professional. However, I have known for a long time that narcotics are addictive. How did it come as a surprise to physicians that the narcotics they were prescribing were likely to addict? I don't care what drug salesmen told the doctors: It is just axiomatic that people's bodies develop tolerance for opioids over time. "Drug tolerance" is the key to addiction. As time goes on, a given dose produces less effect, so the dose is increased. It's a cycle leading to dependency that is very hard to overcome.

Most people who have taken opioids for pain have not experienced such a pleasant effect from the drugs that they return for more, again and again. They stop taking the drugs as soon as pain diminishes. There is a subset of people for whom opioids (and maybe other drugs like nicotine, alcohol...) produce pleasures which they can not resist. They are dead-ringers for addiction. This is not a recently discovered phenomenon.

Political obsessions come and go, which is not to say they are meaningless or irrelevant factors. Racism, white supremacy, misogyny, "homophobia", transsexuality, any inequality, etc. are the current obsessions of the liberal-left. From the late 1940s to the early 1960s the obsessions of the conservative right were communism, subversion, dangerous homosexuality, beatniks, the sterility (or promise) of suburban housing, and corporate careers.

There's usually some reality underlying the political obsession.

Political obsessions are clubs with which to beat the opposition over the head. The obsessions may have some validity. There were some communists and homosexuals in the State Department in the 1950s. That they were not much of a threat to anyone was beside the point. The USSR did project subversives into the United States--as we did into the USSR. Real Politic business as usual. Beatniks actually were criticizing America in poetry and music. None of the reality remotely merited the hysteria and ruined careers.

Political obsessions are more about appearances than substance. Smashing white supremacy will deliver no material benefits to the brown people who are allegedly being oppressed by white devils. We can bend over backwards to accommodate transsexuals, but the fact is that sex is genetically determined and can not be changed. A good share of gender-talk is just plain bullshit.

Heck, we have done just fine with repairing or at least stopping the breakdown of the ozone layer. — ssu

If we had not taken the measure of ceasing CFC production and use in 1992, the ozone depletion problem, would have continued to get worse. Peak CFC levels occurred in 2000. CFCs are cleared at about 4% a year. Ozone depletion would have continued right along, and we would be heading into a period of exposure to much higher levels of UV radiation in mid-latitude cities, well above what is now considered extreme (all that according to NASA). That isn't happening because we stopping doing something that was harmful to the environment. Even so, it will take a while to see the CFCs effects disappear (like 2070).

Switching to "renewables" and nuclear power sounds like a great idea. While we are making some progress in renewable power sources, we have a very long ways to go before we will achieve an actual reduction in yearly production of CO2, etc. No country is on track to achieve modest levels of reduced emissions any time soon which were established in the Paris Agreements.

We have all these sunk investments in coal, oil, and gas we are all loathe to abandon. We also have a tremendous investment in the existing supply of cheap power and plastic. We don't seem to be able to imagine a world without coal, oil, and gas.

Nuclear is an option, certainly, but nuclear energy isn't an over-night solution either. It takes quite a while to build nuclear power plants, from proposal to megawatts. We have not solved the problem of nuclear waste from plants. It is sometimes quite difficult to get rid of waste heat (in certain locations).

We have to reduce demand and actual usage of fuels and raw material, not merely find other sources for all the energy anybody could think of wanting.

Enviro-Pollyanna-Syndrome makes life better today, because it gets the infected temporarily off the hook. But tomorrow they wake up with a bad conscience, an uncomfortable feeling of excess warmth, and a large bill for hydrocarbons. They also find that they are closer to Dooms Day.

As you and Elvis Perkins sing, "I don't like doomsday bother me; does it bother you?"

You are obsessed. And kind of a pain to be around, what with forcing people to play tennis with you, sticking your finger up their noses and into other orifices, and spraying them in the face.

You might get more sex AND tennis if you just asked people nicely.

So is this an agenda to do nothing? — Malcolm Parry

Absolutely not. But there are some problems we can't solve. If there are too many people for the earth's carrying capacity, there is no solution to over-population that we can carry out that would not be morally revolting and utterly dehumanizing. That's where nature comes in. As we exceed capacity... nature will provide some solutions (starvation, disease, natural catastrophe, war...). It's all very unpleasant, and doesn't just apply to the third world.

It is technically possible to lower the levels of CO2 and methane fairly quickly. It would just mean slamming the brakes to the floor on the world economy and producing a political-economic-social train wreck. But that's what we should do if we want to have a long-term future. We don't have time for gradual solutions.

Is it even technically possible to sufficiently brake the CO2/methane economy? Yes, but no one has any appetite for that. It involves things like

a) sharply and rapidly reducing auto/truck traffic (now the major source of CO2 in the N. hemisphere)
b) switch to trains for freight, rebuild passenger train service especially for local travel (25-50 mile radii of urban cores), sharply increase walking and biking for short trips (less than 5 miles)
c) changing to at least vegetarian diets
d) reducing production of non-essential goods (like water bottles, plastic containers for everything, much of the junk at IKEA, Walmart, Amazon, Target, Macy's, Bloomingdales, etc.), cars, recreational vehicles, and so on.
e. Plant three trillion trees. That isn't as impossible as it looks. 400+ trees per person.
... well you get the picture.

So we're kind of left with trusting or not, the deciding authorities — Shamshir

One of the problems of 'advance directives on final care' is that they are not legally binding. Another problem is that they are not always available to the hospital involved in care of patients who are in very bad shape. The attending physicians would not be aware of the advance directive in that situation.

My father was 102 when his heart and lungs began their failure. The doctors at Mayo were interested in pursuing exotic tests and procedures. (His pacemaker battery was about empty, too.). Fortunately, Dad was still quite competent, and the family was present to advocate. On questioning, the doctor admitted that the invasive tests wouldn't lead to survivable procedures. So hospice was decided upon. He spent a reasonably comfortable month in hospice and then died.

I consider this a best-possible outcome. Lots of people can cite both very good and just awful outcomes in care at the end of life.

Do you find the comatose to differ from the brain dead and by how much?
If you had to compare euthanasia vs suicide, outside of the obvious shift in responsibility, how do they differ? — Shamshir

There is a huge difference between being in a coma and being brain dead. "Brain dead" means that the brain does not, can not, and will not function again. Both higher brain and brain stem functions have ceased. Once ceased they do not resume. A dead brain is kaput. Coma and vegetative states apply to brains that are still working (even if not very well) and are not always permanent. People often recover consciousness after being in coma, and sometimes after being in vegetative states, even after a long duration. People in persistent vegetative states [PVS] are not brain dead. Some people who have recovered from PVS report that they were aware, but could not execute any communication.

An effort to test whether PVS subjects could be aware was conducted. fMRI scans on normal subjects had shown that certain kinds of thoughts were detectable; for instance, if the subject was asked to imagine they were playing tennis, a certain pattern of brain activity occurred. When PVS patients were examined in the same way, some, at least, showed exactly the same pattern. They were aware of the test and being told to imagine playing tennis. From these questions yes/no questions were asked of the patient, with 'yes' being imagining tennis, 'no' being thinking of something else.

From this research it was determined that at least some PVS patients are aware.

Suicide and euthanasia are quite different. Turning over the responsibility for one's voluntary death to an agent requires a diagnosis, planning, and various legal rigmarole, as I understand it. On the spur of the moment euthanasia is not legally possible (yet).

Suicide can occur very much on the spur of the moment, or on the spike of despair. If one has a loaded gun handy, it takes just a minute to pick it up, aim, and fire, then sic transit gloria. That's why guns are so often the means of suicide. Pills take time to accumulate and are not all that reliable. Hanging works quite well, but it requires preparation. Gas, carbon monoxide, bridges, high roofs, water, bleeding, alcohol poisoning, plastic bag on one's head... diverse methods.

Psychopathy or sociopathy isn't an all or nothing condition. There are some people who are "slightly psychopathic". If they are also quite intelligent, they might very well rise to the top of the heap because they are willing to do what it takes to get ahead (but stay within the bounds of polite society). A slightly psychopathic business executive will probably find success because he won't feel a great deal of suffering if he has to lay off 500 people on Christmas Eve.

As for "breeding psychopaths", it isn't entirely clear how we get psychopaths or sociopaths. One theory is that "pathic" personalities have a critical defect in their brain--specifically, a solid neural connection between the limbic system (emotional center) and the prefrontal cortex (thinking center). This connection is what enables almost all individuals to incorporate guilt into their personality. We learn guilt by failing to please our parents when we are children and being punished. ("Not only did you eat all the cookies, but you broke the cookie jar too! Shame on you. You're going to get a spanking right now!" her mother yelled.) The child feels like the parents love has been withdrawn, and the fear of love being withdrawn is what we call "guilt". "Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving." Internalized guilt is what keeps us on the straight and narrow, and out of the court house, out of jail, out of trouble.

Psychopaths can't feel fear and guilt. The neurons that make it possible just aren't there. So, they grow up rule-less. They are often also rootless, and don't form close relationships (they can't). Some psychologists are trying to develop therapy to help psychopaths behave (and feel) more normally.

Is all this true? I estimate the what I have written has about a 63% chance o being true.

This is a timely topic, because diseases like Alzheimers and other forms of terminal dementia are increasing with an aging population, and will continue to increase unless we find an effective treatment. So far no luck on that front. A lot of people die from other causes, and reach a point where the benefit of further treatment gives no return, not merely diminished returns.

Rather than resorting to killing Alzheimer (or other terminal) patients, we can provide hospice care under the same terms that (religious hospices, for instance) provide care to the dying cancer patient, the dying infection patient, the dying... whatever patient: No curative measures will be taken in hospice; comfort care is the core. Patients are fed, given drink, kept clean and warm, and supported as long as they can participate (are conscious). When they can no longer swallow, no further food or water is given. Pain relief is continued (injection). They continue to be kept warm and clean. Usually death follows within a week or two. This is "the old fashioned way of dying". No heroics, no crash team, no beeping monitors, no drips, no drugs, no respirators, no cardiac assistance.

Euthanasia is homicide either way. — Shamshir

Euthanasia (eu + thanatos = good or easy death) is a nice euphemism, (an auspicious word) ORWELL ALERT: Be suspicious when politicians use a lot of Latinate words...

What euthanasia is about, to put it in blunt Anglo-Saxon language, is killing the sick and/or old.

I'm not in the pro-life camp where every body must be kept "alive". In my book, the brain dead are dead, whether their heart is beating or not. There are real hopeless cases which no medical intervention can mend, but can assist (palliative care). But actively killing patients is not a policy we should allow (or worse, actively pursue).

People will suffer? Sorry, but yes. Lots of people in this world have suffered, are suffering, and will suffer in the future. We can and ought to relieve suffering. We can and ought to allow people to opt for a limitation on life-preserving procedures, when a) they are in sound mind and b) the patients condition fits their stated preferences and c) a short period of time lies between the patients declaration and the crisis.

What patients can reasonably opt for in the event of severe damage are things like, "do not intubate"; do not force feed; do not sustain with IV water, and such.

But "limitation of life-sustaining procedures" (barring force feeding, intubation and respirator use, resuscitation, etc.) are a far cry from a doctor, judge, nurse, or anyone else deciding to get the patient "out of their and our misery.

Assisted suicide (like a doctor writing an Rx for enough sedative to cause death if taken all at once) isn't euthanasia, either.

Question: Is this some sort of game?
Answer: The game is getting someone to agree with your non-sensical point.

Yes, of course. Forced sex is rape and is several magnitudes worse than forcing someone to play tennis with you.

Why? Because forced sex involves assault and battery, possible injury in the attempt, penetration (or the attempt) of another person's body, a possible pregnancy (which some jurisdictions will force the woman to endure), a denial of the victim's autonomy and dignity, and so on.

Sex can be a non-unique behavior and still be irrelevant to tennis-playing behavior. There are a million non-unique behaviors that can be sorted into ten thousand categories. Some non-unique behaviors will be completely unrelated (celebrating Mass and playing Monopoly) and some will be more closely related (like fixing a flat tire on a car and changing the car's oil and filter).

Hey, Bartricks: We're all smart people here. Of course I understand the distinction and moral significance of voluntary sex vs forced sex.

You are the one that introduced the silly comparison between sex and tennis. I did not.

Thus you are committed to the morally silly view that there's no ethical difference between forcing someone to play tennis with you and forcing sex on someone, other things being equal. — Bartricks

Don't be tiresome.

All of these are excellent questions for philosophers, and everyone else. I would submit that we should stop beating ourselves up. We are following pathways our species evolved to behave and not behave. There are some very unappetizing prospects waiting down the road, if not around the corner.

The key to the global log jam is found in two human features:

The first is that those who control economic decision-making are those who have benefit most from the fossil fuel industry (which took off during the Industrial Revolution). The Koch brothers come to mind, but there are a few million energy and manufacturing stockholders whose fabulous wealth is vested in the status quo.

The second key is the limit on our evolved capacity to feel the urgency of distant (and complex) events. We can know that rising levels of CO2, methane, and other gases are a real threat to our future. We are less successful at feeling the urgency of the not-immediate threat.

The U.S. and the UK were able to mobilize tremendous research and production capacity in WWII because the threat was both existential and immediate. It was not necessary to imagine a fascist axis capable of destroying us. (Even so, it required simultaneous attacks on Hawaii and Philippines (then US territories) to get past US isolationism. The climate crisis is less certain, and for lots of people, a bit too distant. It is "less certain" because we don't know exactly when and how it will unfold for us.

When I say "we" I mean billions of people. The individuals who make up the big "we" one by one can not make long-range policy. The powerful million people who are in a position to make long term policy have interests in the status quo, and like the rest of us, don't "feel" long-term threats.

I put my faith in "Mother Nature" who has ways of resolving difficult problems for species. We probably won't like her solutions, and some among our esteemed selves will be subject to her judgements.

You did not, could not, or would not read what I wrote.

2. Bitter Crank is opposed to forcing people to play tennis or to have sex. — Bitter Crank

Many people are naive about information. They do not have the experience to assay information for accuracy and reliability that they come across in the newspaper, television, internet, or down at the pub. I'm pretty good at it, if I do say so myself, but I'm in my 70s and have a couple of degrees and have spent decades engaged in (mostly personal, some professional) study.

In 1983 I was naive about AIDS. There were all sorts of facts and concepts I either had wrong or did not have at all. I could say "retrovirus" but I really didn't know what the "retro" part meant. When I first started to do AIDS prevention work, I had to bring myself up to speed. It took a couple of years to acquire, absorb, and integrate the unfamiliar information I needed.

I met a college student the other day working as a check-out at a local grocery store who explained he didn't know how credit cards worked (a customer was having difficulties with her card). He went on to explain that he didn't know how checking or banks worked either. Very naive about financial information. Sad, but quite curable.

From my experience, Wikipedia (and a lot of stuff on the Internet) is good, solid information -- BUT one MUST bring at least moderate skill in recognizing garbage. A lot of people don't have that skill. No matter where they get their information from, the naive will have difficulty judging quality.

Placing your penis in their lap and you have a crime. — Coben

A guy's penis may not be quite long enough to place in somebody else's lap. If they cut it off first and then put it in this person's lap, is it still a crime?

Most people really do consider sexual betrayal worse — Bartricks

I bet there are a few people who would rather have had Bernie Madoff et al betray them sexually than lose their entire wealth and security.

You inserted a condition into your syllogism which I had explicitly rejected.

1. Sex and tennis should be mutually consensual.

2. Bitter Crank is opposed to forcing people to play tennis or to have sex.

3. Therefore, Bitter Crank is right.

Have you considered just how much coercion would be required to FORCE someone to play tennis with them--especially if they didn't know how?

You say, for instance, that what is responsible for the widespread intuitions that sex is ethically special is 'convention'. But it could be the other way around - it could be that we have the conventions we do because sex seems special. — Bartricks

Is your statement not an example of what you said in your previous sentence... "you are dogmatically assuming"?

As for convention on the one hand and the alleged natural specialness of sex on the other, how would we at this late date in our development, parse one from the other? I am not a sexologist, so I do not gather evidence about sexual behavior from large numbers of subjects, and then examine the results. What I have to go on is what I have learned from others (reading, conversation, lectures...) and what I have experienced. The same is probably true for you. But even If we were both sexologists with the Kinsey Institute and the University of Indiana at our disposal, we still would never have a sexually naive de novo population to examine. All we would have is millions of people who have a variety of views about sex to which they are probably dogmatically committed.

Look, I'm not in favor of forced sex, forced tennis, forced labor, or forced anything else. I do, as it happens, have strong preferences for HOW we deal with sexuality. Good sex is a piece of personal fulfillment and I think that people have a right to both fulfillment and good sex (voluntary, mutual, unforced, uncoerced, and safe to the extent that it is possible in this unsatisfactory world.

@Baden

Excuse me. Is this a threat? — god must be atheist

Of course it is not a threat. It is a jokey riposte to your quip "what the heck is all this belly-aching about ethics?" Electronically transmitted communications are regularly misinterpreted that wouldn't be if they were delivered in person, because facial expression, body language, intonation, etc. are missing.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to be reacquainted with the fact of how easily the electronic word can be misperceived.

This is a piece of the Minnesota Statutes on speed limits.

169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR.
Subdivision 1.Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
Subd. 1a.License revocation for extreme speed. The driver's license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174.
§Subd. 2.Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district;
(2) 65 miles per hour on noninterstate expressways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 18b, and noninterstate freeways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 19;
(3) 55 miles per hour in locations other than those specified in this section;
(4) 70 miles per hour on interstate highways outside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation;
(5) 65 miles per hour on interstate highways inside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation;
(6) ten miles per hour in alleys;
(7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and
(8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district.
(b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies.
(c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies.
(d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established in this subdivision, or a speed limit designated on an appropriate sign under subdivision 4, 5, 5b, 5c, or 5e, by driving 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit, is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25.
Subd. 2a.Increased speed limit when passing. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, the speed limit is increased by ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit when the driver:
(1) is on a two-lane highway having one lane for each direction of travel;
(2) is on a highway with a posted speed limit that is equal to or higher than 55 miles per hour;
(3) is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction of travel; and
(4) meets the requirements in section 169.18.
Subd. 3.Reduced speed required. (a) The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on any street or highway, when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
(b) A person who fails to reduce speed appropriately when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on a street or highway shall be assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25.

what the heck is all this belly-aching about ethics? — god must be atheist

If you don't start behaving yourself, you'll find out what the belly-aching is about.

There must be something wrong with the Internet tonight, considering the way you read what I wrote.

a maximum speed of 55, 65, or 75 mph (depending on the state) on state and federal highways (and less, if so posted) is not a suggestion, it is the actual law. On the Interstate, when you cross a border, one will quite often see big white signs saying "STATE LAW: MN Law forbids the use of hand held phones while driving".

A law is a law, numbered, titled, and printed in black and white. What is complicated is the legal system. It isn't the law that seeks to find the truth; that task is up to the courts. The courts are governed by a set of laws directing that courts operate in a certain way. The Legislatures write the law, and and the civilian government enforce the law.

Does every player in court know ahead of time, how the judges and the jury will decide? If the answer is no, then nobody knows the law. — god must be atheist

Only in a rigged system would everyone know ahead of time what the judges and jury will decide. Now, there have been rigged courts (all over the world) but courts are not as a rule rigged.

Real Estate Law, or probate law, or tax law, and so on may be extremely complicated which is why there are people called lawyers who take classes in tax law, probate law, real estate law, tort law, and so on, so they can tell clients what is legal and what is not. Like, a smart lawyer will tell you that mass murder is illegal. So is counterfeiting, robbing banks, burning houses down, or stealing high-end steak from the meat market. Lawyers are smart that way.

Common Law forms a significant part of US law, as I understand anyway, and while there are vast stretches of arid, dust-drifting drabness in the law like real estate law or tax law, the commonest parts of common law are knowable: citizens are responsible for their actions; citizens have rights; government officials are not above the law; the state cannot take your property without fair compensation--stuff like that.

People are supposed to know that if the sign says, speed limit 55 mph, then that is what it means, not 60 or 70 mph.

Is god a just god? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

“Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever..."

Maybe we should hope not.

What CCTV (that's odd--Closed Caption TV?) does is assist in the identification and apprehension of scofflaws, major criminals, and evil doers. It doesn't prevent people from violating the law, it doesn't make people more moral. It makes some more clever in their deviousness, and many resentful toward the state that they can never casually whip out a spray can and apply vulgar, disrespectful, and inconsiderate comments to Trump and Johnson re-election posters.

People will start wearing special cosmetics that disrupt facial recognition software (note Hong Kong demonstrator methods). Some bizarre people look like they are already wearing it! Our computer monitors (not the screens, but the AI that never sleep) will be hacked to defeat ID by AI, at least sometimes.

I'll grant you, Total Information Systems will be very difficult to escape. Once every credit card purchase, transit pass card, facial recognition system, RFID chips in everything (including you), and universal CCTV coverage is linked together and correlated, you won't be able to fart without it registering on the web of control. Add to that neighborhood spies who report that you are serepticiousy feeding squirrels (it might be against the law one of these days) and then we will become automatons. Until that great and glorious day we rise up, smash the cameras, blow up the server farms, melt-down every AI device, and take axes to the officials who oversee the system...

Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? — SethRy

The upshot of what follows is that soldiers are not significant moral agents in wars.

Who, in fact, determines and fuels the scope of war--soldiers or others?

I define "soldiers" as the grades of military who actually engage in the messy business of fighting. Above the soldiers are layers of "command" who issue orders, but are not themselves fighting. Behind the soldiers are all sorts of "support" operations that are absolutely essential to large-scale war.

Above the military command stands the civilian government (in most countries) who regulates and pays for the prosecution of war.

It seems to me that soldiers are least responsible, but most intimately involved. Command is most responsible, and least intimately involved. Support is more intimately involved in the supply chain the closer to the front one is.

The only thing a solder can do to stake out his own moral ground is conscientiously object to war, and refuse to serve. Once one agrees to be a soldier, a great deal of personal executive agency is lost. Obey or else. A few disobedient soldiers will be shot to make the point. Civilians have many more choices, but in the case of total war, their options too are constrained.

IF you are looking for first causes, look to the Oval Office, the Congress, the Kremlin office of the Premier, the Central Committee, the Parliament, the Palace of the Maximum Leader, or whatever constitutes the civilian government of society. Even a modest war requires the diversion of large shares of civilian wealth for the conduct of a war. The United States has spent 6 trillion dollars for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. Other countries have, at various times, spent equally vast sums to pursue war.

How does "the central guidance of the law" cease to apply in times of war?

The civilian government will pass whatever laws are required to prosecute a war in the desired style. Limited War or Total War, the cost has to be raised from civilians -- there isn't any other source. Will it be necessary to kill women, men, and children? Legality can be arranged, no problem.

Furthermore, are soldiers different people in different places? — SethRy

Yes and no, which applies to all of us. We assume different roles (maybe personas) in different contexts, yet we remain the same person. The soldiers personally shooting Jews into mass graves in Ukraine in 1942-43 were later upstanding citizens, husbands, and fathers--bearing scars, no doubt, but more or less normal.

the citizens are expected to follow the law, but they are not expected to know the law. — god must be atheist

I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse" was the general idea. No?

Not that anyone cares, but I'll be 30 next month. — Jimmy

Jimmy, you have no idea how little anyone cares.

Jimmy, now that you have made it to 30, it's time for you to learn an unpleasant fact of life: If you leave yourself open to cruel, sarcastic thrusts, one of the many wicked people lurking about will take the opportunity to throw some acid-comment your way. Like, don't begin a sentence with "Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't understand... whatever." Someone will chime in with, "No doubt about it!"

Or "Sorry I'm late!" invites, "We're not."

In a meeting a pastor confessed, "I just don't know much about music." The choir directer rejoined her confession with, "That certainly seems to be true." See what I mean? Demons everywhere just waiting to shove pitchforks into your tender self-assurance.

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call
And call Alice, when she was just small

When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low
Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head

White Rabbit by Grace Slick who, by the way, is is 80 years old, alive, and well (at least as of 2019)

I find references to the Matrix like it mattered to be extremely irritating. Stop it or you will be unplugged and will never be whelmed again!

Aside from that, a warm friendly welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

And once more you are committing the genetic fallacy by providing a possible history of the intuitions. — Bartricks

Not quite sure what this means. But history has a great deal to do with the reasoning behind sex being viewed as a special ethical case. What was going on in the 16th, 17th, or 18th century doesn't govern our thinking directly, but indirectly it has some influence.

That people today are supposed to cover their mouths when they yawn is a 17th/18th century behavior based on what the folks on the hill in those days thought proper. I'm not, and maybe you are not either, a descendant of the folks on the hill--the cultural elite of past centuries. But from generation to generation people are taught what their parents knew. It's not genetic, it's pedagogical.

By insisting that it is irrational to view sex as ethically special you are assuming that reason does not represent it to be. Yet as my examples show, reason clearly does represent it to be ethically special. — Bartricks

Au contraire. By reason people represent sex to be special--or not. How else would we have an opinion on the ethical specialness of sex? But reason doesn't exist in a vacuum. We reason in the context of our culture, of course, and our culture contains elements of various age. Like the business about yawning.

You asked what was so special about sexual relations. I said I didn't think it was special, except by convention. Where ethics comes into play is when it concerns progeny. Most people feel obligated to support their children, but certainly not everyone. I consider abandoning progeny to be quite unethical. Convenient, yes -- ethical, no.

Unwilled sexual relations is also an ethical issue, not so much because it is sex, but because people generally don't like being forced to do things. You would like to eat your favorite meal. You wouldn't enjoy being force-fed the same food.

If you don't like my reply, please be more specific about what you think is wrong with it.

So I think most of you are missing the point, which is that sex appears to be morally special in and of itself. So sex is a bit like pain in this respect. Many acts that are wrong are wrong precisely because they cause someone some pain. (Not all, obviously, and not all acts that cause someone pain are wrong, but many are wrong and wrong precisely because they cause a person pain). Many acts are wrong precisely because they involve sex. — Bartricks

Sex is not special. It's one of several essential biological functions: eating, breathing, drinking, voiding urine and feces, clearing one's nose, coughing, farting, sneezing, salivating, tearing, sleeping, moving about, and so on. Over time our biological functions have been hedged about with social restrictions, mostly top-down.

As Richard Lyman Bushman observed in his book (I mentioned it above) The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities, 18th century "taste makers" (various people who helped people achieve the level of gentility they desired) considered the body an embarrassing "shell" that one should not expose or infringe upon. They disapproved of open mouths. Quality people were not to laugh out loud, yawn, walk around with their mouth open (no mouth-breathers allowed), and so on, because the open mouth was considered 'disgusting' and low class. Sharing a spoon was strongly disapproved of, NOT BECCAUSE OF ANY FEARS OF DISEASE, but because if one person's mouth had touched a spoon, it was "ritually contaminated", so somebody else would not want to touch it.

All this is perfectly irrational, and our attitudes about sex and sexuality are of like kind. We are not supposed to behave like animals (so they say). So over time, (centuries, not years) sexuality has been overlaid with multiple layers of ethical and behavioral restrictions.

I've been reading a book about "how gentility became a thing in colonial America and during the 19th century". Interesting book. But anyway, the author asks the question, "Why were royal courts so extremely regulated and formal in their behavior?

The author points out that extremely ambitious and highly acquisitive people flocked to court and surrounded the king--they were the courtiers. Without extremely severe regulation, life at court would have quickly turned into a vicious and deadly brawl. All those ambitious and acquisitive people had to be kept under control. Hence all the rules of proper behavior.

Sex is quite powerful. People get quite charged up over sexual offense, sexual desire, sexual performance, sexual deprivation, sexual competition, sex this, sex that, and sex and so on. The lid has to be kept on, or we would be doing a lot more squabbling and taking pot shots at each other.

Sex is fenced off with all sorts of barbed wire boundaries to keep everyone behaving tolerably in group settings.

What happens when the lid comes off? In some situations, heaven sets in. A gay bath house operates (or operated when there were lots of bath houses around) on rather loose terms--something not too far from anything goes as long as there was no serious objection from those involved. Sex in the bushes also operates with a minimum number of rules.

Why don't straight men engage in that sort of sex play? Because straight women won't let them. Wives and partners expect their men to be responsible and not engage in extra-marital sex, let alone engage in flagrantly promiscuous anonymous sex with god knows whom. Women tend to be guardians of the hearth. Vesta was the goddess of the Roman hearth. The Vestal Virgins kept the sacred fires of Rome. Your suburban housewife is a small-time goddess of her own hearth. Her job is to keep the home fires burning, and to keep the guy near the fire.

Men tend not to look at home quite the same way. There aren't any male god hearth watchers that I know of. Men, far from being vestal virgins, are more like festive fuckers -- happy to have as much sex as possible.

Fresco, dear, lots of us are atheists, but recognize that "religion" is 100% real, even though the gods are not. Of the 7+billion people on earth, at least 6+billion think about religion in more or less positive terms (their own, usually). "My religion is good and true; your religion is a pile of crap." Atheists take that approach, too, quite often.

Religion is a critical cultural activity, and has been for quite a long time--far longer than atheism. Longer than philosophy. Longer than agriculture.

Do you have any further questions?

the contents of your mind come to your attention by reason alone — Mww

I am not sure that "reason" is the right word here. The contents of your mind include the capacity to look at and reflect on the contents of your mind. Maybe "probing" (reasonable or not) is the key. Freud thought that dreams were the royal road into the unconscious mind. Dreams are a road -- these days more like the decertified route 66 than the Queen's Highway. Introspection, rumination, free-association, combing one's memories about specific things, unbidden memories, unbidden thoughts (unbidden by the conscious mind, anyway; who knows what devious purposes some neuronal cluster had in sending that excruciating memory from 7th grade to the Big Screen, just now...).

In a very narrow sense, we all experience the "locked in" syndrome. There is just so much we can't access and express, even to ourselves, much less to all or any others.