Sometimes folk do stuff they ought not? Yes. Many - most? - issues are inscrutable. That our choices are rational is more pretence than reality.

Should we therefore not at least attempt to be rational? To be consistent and coherent? There's a new discussion for you.

Playing with statements is the shallow end of the pool. — frank

Yep. One can keep one's footing. I surmise Truman realised it was immoral, but did it anyway. Would I have done differently? Such contemplations are fraught with equivocation. The morality of the act was probably not high on the agenda at those meetings.

Kant had many odd habits. Perhaps it would be best not to follow him too blindly. I've a liking for Nussbaum, if you need names. Beyond that, Philippa Foot, perhaps.

Her argument there is curious... that in order to be under an obligation one must already be operating in the context of laws. But one can place oneself under an obligation. In the end I do not share her certainty as to what god expects from us.

By and large morality is something we observe in ourselves and in the world. — frank

I'm not sure how to understand this. Morality is about what we do. That's why it's something we observe in the world. It can be discussed, and so subjected to logic. Even if " the struggle to survive is raw and blind", ought it be so?

If you don't feel like following me on that, that's fine. — frank

I won't pretend to have special access to Truman's beliefs.

The will to live is amoral. — frank

If what you mean is that you want to live, that's fine. "I want to live" says nothing about how you should deal with others, so it says nothing about morality.

What you do on behalf of your own survival can't be judged as long as you thought you had no alternative. — frank

This does not follow from your premise. It doesn't follow because it is about how you treat others, and so has moral content.

Whence that moral content? There's a missing premise, something along the lines of "I may do whatever I want to other people in order to preserve my life". And that is not so.

___________________
But further, it is clear that there were alternatives, that the Allies were winning and that neither Truman nor the allies were in imminent danger of extinction.

So I don't see how what you have said works.

Cheers. Good to hear at least one person had a look. "Choosing to kill the innocent as a means to an end is always murder". Truman was a murderer.

Sometimes we believe that a broken clock is working. — creativesoul

Again, this is ambiguous. It might be either

Sometimes we believe that a clock is both broken and not broken

or

The clock is broken and sometimes we believe that it is not broken.

De dicto/ de re.

Where does disquotation fit here? Why are you now talking about theories of truth?

I'm finding this too ridiculous. Walking away.

You're running the conversation. Nothing you have said makes a case for there being beliefs that are not propositional.

For three pages.

False belief cannot be true
S's belief is false
"That clock is working" can be true
"That clock is working" cannot be S's belief — creativesoul

This just says that S has a false belief. Yep.

I'm wondering why you keep changing the example. — creativesoul

You're having a lend.

We do not believe (a clock is both broken and not broken)

You're saying that "a clock is both broken and not broken" is not a proposition?

P1. Sometimes we believe, of a broken clock, that it is working.

The propositional content here is "the clock is working"; the bit after "that".

This is not an example of a belief that does nto have a propositional content.

:lol:

By the conclusion not following from the premises. Indeed, "propositional attitude" is not even mentioned in the premises.

It's invalid, and P1 is ambiguous in the way already discussed.

I'm tired of this constipated approach. Sure.

Make an argument.

Mr Truman's Degree.

An article that might give this thread some moral guidance.

That's not true. — creativesoul

Yep. My bad. This whole process is so wearisome, I lost track. My apologies. You specified that S believed the clock was working. That's what I'm working from.

Do you need me to guess your argument again? You claimed something like "S believes that the broken clock is working" and now perhaps you want to know why it's that the clock is working that is in the belief and not that the clock is broken?

Well, right back in my first couple of replies I pointed out an ambiguity. We're just assuming that S does not believe that the clock is both broken and working - that S is reasonable.

I don't see a difference between that question and your previous one. That S believes the clock is broken was specified, by you.

How do you determine what would be included or not within the scope of S's belief at any given time? — creativesoul

Form the OP, beliefs explain, but do not determine, actions. Any belief can be made to account for any action, by adding suitable auxiliary beliefs.

So they are not determined.

Are you asking how one decides that S believes p? Well, by their actions, including what they say.

Again, it seems the core reasons for talking about beliefs are firstly in order to differentiate times when we are wrong or mistaken - when our beliefs are not true; and secondly to explain actions: S went to the fruit because he wanted an apple and believed there was fruit in the bowl.

I'm using scope specifically for the range of the belief. What S says would seem to be irrelevant.

And no, I'm not just avoiding giving a straight answer. Scope is a point of logic, rather than of conversation.

that’ll be the article written by an academic specialising in management and engineering.

Please give me an example of a modern society that exists without any hierarchy whatsoever (excluding special cases like the Vatican City, or islands like Fiji). — ButyDude

It seems you don't know much about Fiji. Nor, oddly, the Vatican.

That there are no such examples does not show that there could not be such an example. Further, that there are no such examples does not mean that there ought not be such examples.

You have not demonstrated necessity, let alone obligation.

Again,

I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't. — Banno

Puts me in mind of the feminist joke:

Man says "If there were no men, who would protect you?"

Woman replies "If there were no men, who would I need protecting from?"

Yawn.

Because I feel that my assertions have not been strongly challenged. — ButyDude

Yep. The views you espouse here are a manifestation of your more fundamental religious views, expressed elsewhere. You are not here to re-think. That much was obvious from your OP.

"OP" - opening post. The first post on this thread, in which you made various claims.

You asserted that hierarchies weren’t necessary for society — ButyDude

No. I pointed out that your assertion that hierarchies are necessary for society is not accepted anthropology. If they were "necessary" there would be no alternative, and yet there plainly are alternative views. Your position relies on not recognising that your view is contentious.

Societies are usually hierarchic and patriarchal. But they are not necessarily so.

Your use of your assertion to critique "gender history" is dependent on patriarchy being necessary. It isn't.

And now you refuse to discus the political and ethical implications of your assertions.

You can’t find even one — ButyDude

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starving. Another particularly obtuse Lord challenged him, saying "If, as you say, there are thousands starving, then you should have no trouble naming one". — Banno

Your OP makes claims as to how society ought function. They are ethical claims.

I am looking for criticism on my argument and arguments against this one. — ButyDude

No, you're not. Pertinacious, pretentious crap.

...exclusively... — ButyDude

The OP here makes ethical claims. They have been challenged as examples of the naturalists fallacy.

Stop pissing around.

You make ethical claims on a philosophy forum and then don't want to discuss ethics.

Go away.

Both support the view that spare production allowed the development of a hierarchy. Neither is a tertiary source. Neither argues that hierarchy is a necessary result of masculine genetics. Neither supports your contention.

That societies are in the main hierarchical and patriarchic is not at issue. What is at issue is that this is necessary and unavoidable and good.

I would rather you message me privately. — ButyDude

Why? This is a philosophy forum. We can and should discuss such ethical issues openly. It seems, on the little shown so far, that your views ethically questionable. Present them for inspection.

And you have yet to address 's point: even if you are correct about the biology (you are not), humans might choose otherwise. Why not opt for greater equity?

So now you turn the argument into one about what is a primary, and what a tertiary, source. Slither and slide. Primary and secondary sources express the opinion of or provide an interpretation by the author, which is what the articles you cite do.

Show me a reputable and recent encyclopaedic entry that makes the claim that patriarchy is a result of biology.

How is young Jordan, I wonder? Still persecuting his colon, I presume. Too much hunt, not enough gather. Needs some greens to keep him regular.

First, you should make your position clearer. — ButyDude

Well, no. Showing that your suggestion is questionable does not require the presentation of an alternative. Further, your aim is off since feminist theory tends at least as much if not more, towards Marxist and Hegelian critique as towards post modern. Your analysis of power structures is somewhat blunt.

Second, hierarchies are absolutely necessary to a functional society. — ButyDude

Hmm. Another primary source. In other material folk point out that human culture is astonishingly varied, that there have been successful egalitarian societies, with organisational structures that are not hierarchic, often by explicit choice. There's an ambiguity in "necessary" that allows you to dither between whether social hierarchies do emerge or whether they ought emerge; it may be that we have an obligation to resist your supposed causes of hierarchy. After all, humans can choose how to behave. So, for example, that female social hierarchies are unstable may indicate that matriarchy ought be preferred, in the interests of equality. That is, you are cherry picking.

Third, I am sure that there is a male disposition — ButyDude

Your certainty is of little interest here.

:rofl:

Good point, that even if we grant it, a predisposition for hierarchies might well be something that males ought overcome.

Wonderful stuff. How to respond to someone who quotes material that contradicts his view, as if it were in support of his view?

Despite a frequently observed division of labour, women and men are often equally involved in relevant practices, including economic decisions, politics, healing, and ritual affairs.” — OEA

Nothing to support your view that hierarchies are necessary, let alone that they are a genetic result of masculinity. But keep digging, you may find something.

Google is a wonderful thing, but a study of a bit over a hundred undergrads from a Western University hardly leads to results that we might readily apply to all of human culture and history.

It's perhaps better in this context to stick with reliable tertiary sources, since the information comes pre-digested. For example, the OEA article on hunting and gathering offers several differing accounts of how hierarchies, while mostly absent or nascent, might arise, pointing out that

The primate heritage seems to be characterised by widespread hierarchy... from which human foragers managed to break away.

This appears to directly contradict your view of a male genetic disposition, which is certainly not offered as one of the options.

I remain unconvinced.

What is one anthropology text I should read? — ButyDude

Apocryphal has it that there was a debate in the House of Lords during a famine in Bangladesh, in which one Lord lamented the thousands who were starving. Another particularly obtuse Lord challenged him, saying "If, as you say, there are thousands starving, then you should have no trouble naming one".

You might start here;

the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. — ButyDude

So how does this imply a creator? Anselm's "and this we all call god"? Finish the argument.

the Big Bang, must have been caused by something outside of the universe. — ButyDude

That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example in "The boundary conditions of the universe". But also there are good reasons not to accept that every event must have a cause.

Can you prove that everything in the universe has a cause? Or is it just an assumption on your part?

Tell me why. — ButyDude

Read an introductory anthropology text that is less than fifty years old. — Banno

I am here to learn. — ButyDude

I very much doubt it.