Leontiskos

I agree. :up: Well, if the insured businesses are more likely to be vandalized then it is reasonable for the insurance company to charge higher premiu...

No, you have not already explicated that. You gave a case when Q is not necessarily intended, and this is different from giving a case where it is not...

Okay good, but the key thing you need to do is explain the case in which Q is not intended. Are you saying that it is not intended whenever it is not ...

Sure - I edited up that post after I realized this, but it looks like you began replying before my edit went through. Sure, I can see that point of vi...

Okay, so from the "Aristotle's Metaphysics" thread: From this I am led to believe that you agree with Gerson's larger project, but disagree regarding ...

It seems to me that the question at hand asks what it means to deliberately/intentionally/purposefully kill. Although you and I may disagree on a grea...

I don't think so, and I don't think it's a coincidence that your sentence reads like a necessary falsehood. Apart from very odd and idiosyncratic defi...

Very true, just as, in an even more extreme way, many of the Wittgenstenians in these parts assume that if you disagree with them you must be followin...

Okay. First, I don't know how helpful this is given the fact that "intent" and "purpose" are synonyms. Now you've just said all the same things you we...

- :up:

- #1 is a chapter in book #2, not a book in itself. When it comes to citations ChatGPT is apt to make errors such as this.

I think the question is not so much, "What have we done in the past?" as it is, "Why have we done it?" Why did we make two bathrooms in the first plac...

Right, of course. Maybe, but it may well lead nowhere. I don't know that it was well-coordinated or thought-out in any sense.

- Well Heidegger is tricky, but for starters I would want to say that both Gerson and Heidegger could offer a true lens, even if those two lenses are ...

I'd say this abductive shift is key in these sorts of arguments. "Which is more rational or plausible? To say that kinds do exist, or to say that they...

There is an interesting article over at the libertarian outlet, Reason, entitled, "New York Prosecution's Story About Trump Featured Several Logically...

Picking this sentence up from a dead (12 month-old) thread: Is this to say, "We can discriminate, just not for malevolent reasons," or is it more true...

I think antinatalism is inherently bound up with Gnosticism. This is because it opposes the natural order, and to oppose the natural order requires ap...

Er, I think antinatalism is dead in the water due to this argument: Procreation is permissible in an all but perfect world Benatar's argument excludes...

Yes - I’ve changed my mind regarding the trolley case. I now hold that pulling the lever is permissible if the conditions of double effect are being a...

Here is a logical presentation of the greenlight/prohibition distinction, which I tried to add in an edit but apparently did not get added: You are co...

Okay. :up: Er, I think it's much more than a one-off. Examples include masturbation, suicide, treatment of animals, and self-mutilation, but the deepe...

I think Gerson is on the right track, so I probably see it as less controversial than you do. First I would say that Gerson's thesis does not preclude...

Okay, I can see your point. There is here a very strong opposition from Plotinus to Aristotle's "hylemorphism."

I am going to come back and make a full response when I have more time, but let me respond to this one thing quickly: According to what you say here t...

Because it does not justify acts. Kant is not greenlighting, he is prohibiting. You've missed this point two times now. But this is the metabasis, whi...

Okay, then I am more comfortable in my claim that you are misinterpreting Kant. From my edit: As far as I recall, Kant follows Christianity in claimin...

Sorry, I know I need to respond to your post in the Metaphysics thread, but Gerson is dividing philosophers into two camps. It is legitimate to ask qu...

- Well this is very similar to @"schopenhauer1"'s ideas. I would say that if someone is being treated as a mere means then their autonomy is not being...

But I think we are talking about the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, not autonomy. I grant that an arranged marriage infringes auton...

If you think it violates the second formulation, then who is being treated as a mere means? I don't quite see it, and I am thinking of the analogous s...

Well the way you have been wielding Plato's seventh letter makes it seem like Plato can have no public teaching.

Does the pilot have "a separate but related duty to cause as few deaths as possible in the event where he cannot avoid causing deaths"? () So I am won...

Are you claiming that Plato did not intend to make anything whatsoever public? That approach succeeds in nixing the OP, but it proves far too much.

- Yes, interesting points. :up: I don't really disagree with any of that, but I think it often gets taken in problematic directions. I have been readi...

- Right, and for that reason I don't think the explanation presented in your first sentence would even be possible. Given how much we agree on, I thin...

You are certainly using them as a means without their consent. Again, the invalidity of your argument lies in confusing a prohibition with an allowanc...

No, it began by saying that your interpretation of the letter was such. The letter does not say that Plato holds no positions, or that none of his pos...

I don't think Kant, Moliere, or Moliere's Kant hold that "mere" can be an excuse to cause harm. No one holds that position. Your arguments here seem t...

- Sure, but we already have a thread on the topic of antinatalism, including a conversation (). I think Kant is rightly interpreted as prohibiting usi...

The point is that science and logic are secondary realities. Science is more fundamental than scientific paradigms, but science is also secondary in i...

- I think that is right. :up:

- No, it's a good point, and I think Kant got lying right. Trust is incredibly important to the existence of society. It's no wonder ours is collapsin...

No: see: . If you are merely conditioning someone, then you are not punishing them. But as you yourself point out, the sentencing agent would still be...

- That's fair, but I would still say that in each case social disintegration threatens on the heels of the "contradiction."

The Groundwork is just as clear that an act premised on happiness would not be moral. And regarding that earlier concept of communal self-interest the...

My point is that it does not entail what you say it does. It seems you missed the point of my post. Did Plato and Aristotle argue? Do we have a source...

Er, the implication was that you were defending someone who pulled the trigger. That's why I wrote, "When you are defending someone accused of murder....

That's a 21st century thesis in the sense that Plato and Aristotle died 2500 years ago and we can argue about their texts ad infinitum. The problem is...

If you want to claim that you have given some sort of precise and uncontroversial definition of "spontaneous," then sure, we can call it a false trile...