Category: philosophy

Summary:

In this excerpt from “The Mind and Its Place in Nature,” C.D. Broad sets out to systematically analyze the possible relationships between mind and matter. He begins by outlining a classification system that results in seventeen distinct theoretical possibilities. These are based on combinations of attributes (mentality and materiality) that can be:

• Differentiating: Unique to a substance
• Emergent: Arising from combinations of other attributes
• Reducible: Explainable in terms of other attributes
• Delusive: Seemingly present but not actually real

Broad then proceeds to evaluate each of these seventeen possibilities, eliminating those he deems impossible or absurd. He refutes theories like pure materialism and behaviorism, arguing that they fail to account for the subjective experience of consciousness. He also critiques mentalism, which posits that materiality is an illusion.

Broad ultimately favors a form of emergent materialism, where mentality arises from complex material structures, although he acknowledges the possibility of neutral monism (where both mind and matter emerge from a neutral substance). He concludes by exploring the implications of these theories for the future of mind in the universe, emphasizing the importance of scientific progress in psychology and the potential dangers of unequal development across different branches of knowledge.

Evaluation:

Broad’s analysis is notable for its systematic and rigorous approach. He meticulously defines his terms and constructs a comprehensive framework for understanding the mind-matter problem. His arguments are clear, logical, and often insightful, particularly his critiques of behaviorism and reductive materialism.

However, the excerpt also reveals some limitations:

• Dependence on Definitions: Broad’s conclusions heavily rely on his specific definitions of terms like “mentality” and “materiality.” Different interpretations of these concepts could lead to different conclusions.
• Limited Empirical Evidence: Broad acknowledges the limitations of empirical evidence in supporting his preferred theory. The lack of strong evidence for or against many of the theories he discusses makes his conclusions somewhat tentative.
• Overly Simplistic Categories: While Broad’s classification system is helpful, it may be overly simplistic. The complex relationship between mind and matter might not fit neatly into his predefined categories.
• Potential for Bias: Broad’s preference for emergent materialism may be influenced by the scientific worldview prevalent in his time.

Despite these limitations, Broad’s work remains a valuable contribution to the philosophy of mind. His systematic approach and insightful arguments provide a framework for continued exploration of the mind-matter problem. His emphasis on the importance of scientific progress in psychology and the potential dangers of unequal development across different branches of knowledge remains relevant today.

———————————————-

Put in chart form the seventeen types of mind/body relations in cd broad’s mind and its place in nature

C.D. Broad, in his influential work “The Mind and Its Place in Nature,” meticulously outlines 17 possible relationships between mind and body. Here’s a chart summarizing these views, categorized by how they treat the mental and the physical:

Mind/Body Relation	Mental	Physical	Description
1. Pure Idealism	Real & Fundamental	Delusive or Non-Existent	Only minds and their contents are real. The physical world is an illusion or a mental construct.
2. Epiphenomenalism	Emergent	Real & Fundamental	The physical world is primary. Minds emerge from physical processes but have no causal influence on them.
3. Emergent Materialism	Emergent	Real & Fundamental	Similar to epiphenomenalism, but minds, though emergent from the physical, can causally affect the physical.
4. Psychical Causation	Real & Fundamental	Emergent	Minds are fundamental. The physical world emerges from mental processes or is causally influenced by them.
5. Mentalistic Monism	Real & Fundamental	Reducible to Mental	Both mind and matter are real, but the physical world is ultimately reducible to minds or mental events.
6. Neutral Monism	Reducible to a Neutral Substance	Reducible to a Neutral Substance	Both mind and matter are aspects or manifestations of a more fundamental, neutral substance.
7. Materialistic Monism	Reducible to Physical	Real & Fundamental	Both mind and matter are real, but the mental is ultimately reducible to physical processes.
8. Pre-Established Harmony	Real & Distinct	Real & Distinct	Mind and matter are distinct substances that do not causally interact but are perfectly coordinated by a pre-existing harmony.
9. Occasionalism	Real & Distinct	Real & Distinct	Similar to pre-established harmony, but the coordination between mind and body is achieved through God’s constant intervention.
10. Interactionism	Real & Distinct	Real & Distinct	Mind and matter are distinct substances that causally interact with each other.
11. Parallelism	Real & Distinct	Real & Distinct	Mind and matter are distinct substances that exist in parallel without any causal interaction.
12. Double Aspect Theory	Aspect of a Single Substance	Aspect of a Single Substance	Mind and matter are two different aspects or perspectives of a single underlying substance.
13. Compound Theory	Combination of Mental and Physical Elements	Real & Distinct	The mind is composed of both mental and physical elements, while the physical world exists independently.
14. Emergent Neutralism	Emergent from a Neutral Substance	Emergent from a Neutral Substance	Both mind and matter emerge from a more fundamental, neutral substance.
15. Identity Theory	Identical to Physical	Identical to Mental	Mental states and physical states are identical, meaning they are one and the same thing.
16. Eliminative Materialism	Delusive or Non-Existent	Real & Fundamental	Mental states, as commonly understood, do not exist. Only physical processes are real.
17. Panpsychism	Fundamental Property	Real, with Mental Properties	Mind is a fundamental property of all matter, not just living things.

Export to Sheets

This table provides a concise overview of Broad’s 17 classifications. It’s important to note that Broad himself didn’t advocate for any single view but rather aimed to provide a comprehensive and neutral framework for understanding the diverse possibilities in the mind-body debate.

Tell me what you think about the following project. I would like to examine all philosophy books and journal articles and axiomatize them. Then select the first place where a sound argument occurs and where it is repeated. Also compare all the arguments and select the most reasonable ones. Is this project feasable?

ChatGPT said:

Your project is ambitious and intellectually stimulating, but it also faces significant challenges due to the scope and complexity of what you’re proposing. Here’s a breakdown of its feasibility and potential issues:

1. Scope of Axiomatization

• Feasibility: Philosophy texts are often written in natural language, not formal logic. Axiomatizing these texts would require translating dense, nuanced arguments into formal systems, which is highly time-consuming and requires a deep understanding of both philosophy and formal logic.
• Challenges:
  • Many philosophical arguments rely on implicit premises or context-specific interpretations that resist formalization.
  • Ambiguities and terminological differences across eras and traditions could complicate the process.

2. Identifying “Sound” Arguments

• Feasibility: Determining soundness requires establishing both the validity of the argument and the truth of its premises. For many philosophical arguments, the premises are themselves contentious and subject to ongoing debate.
• Challenges:
  • Epistemic disputes: Philosophers often disagree on what counts as “true” or “reasonable.”
  • Subjectivity: Your evaluation criteria for soundness may unintentionally reflect personal or cultural biases.

3. Tracking Repetition and Comparing Arguments

• Feasibility: It is possible to track thematic and argumentative repetitions using textual analysis and citation tracking, especially with the help of AI and natural language processing (NLP).
• Challenges:
  • Philosophers often rephrase or reframe arguments rather than repeating them verbatim.
  • Differences in context and purpose may make it hard to compare arguments directly.

4. Selecting the Most “Reasonable” Arguments

• Feasibility: This step is subjective, as “reasonableness” can depend on criteria such as logical coherence, simplicity, or practical applicability.
• Challenges:
  • Philosophical disagreement: Different traditions (e.g., analytic vs. continental) prioritize different criteria for evaluating arguments.
  • The project risks privileging certain philosophical methodologies over others.

5. Practical and Technical Considerations

• Scale: The sheer number of books, articles, and philosophical traditions makes the project enormous. Even with advanced AI, it could take years to process all the material.
• Resources: You would need access to vast academic databases and likely a team of researchers and developers to assist with formalization, coding, and analysis.
• AI Assistance: Recent developments in AI could help automate parts of the process, such as identifying arguments and categorizing themes. However, AI systems still struggle with nuanced reasoning and context-dependent interpretation.

Recommendations

• Narrow the Scope: Start with a subset of philosophy, such as a specific period, tradition, or set of texts, to create a manageable pilot project.
• Leverage Technology: Use existing tools like NLP for argument extraction and logical formalization.
• Iterative Approach: Focus on one part of the project (e.g., axiomatization or soundness evaluation) before expanding to others.
• Collaborate: Engage with experts in philosophy, logic, and AI to refine your methodology.

If successful, your project could be a groundbreaking contribution to philosophy, helping clarify and systematize centuries of thought. However, it will require careful planning, robust methodologies, and likely a lifetime (or more!) of dedicated effort.

4o

O

ChatGPT said:

AI can be a powerful tool for interpreting philosophical texts by enhancing analysis, providing context, and aiding comprehension. Here’s how it can help:

1. Summarizing and Clarifying Texts

• Simplifying Dense Passages: AI can break down complex sentences and ideas into simpler language while preserving the meaning.
• Summaries: Generate concise summaries of chapters, sections, or entire works, helping readers focus on key arguments and ideas.

2. Providing Context

• Historical Background: AI can provide information on the historical and cultural context in which a text was written.
• Authorial Intent: Offer insights into the author’s influences, other works, and philosophical traditions relevant to their ideas.

3. Comparative Analysis

• Connecting Ideas: Compare themes or arguments across multiple texts, authors, or philosophical traditions.
• Tracking Influences: Identify intertextual connections between authors or schools of thought.

4. Logical Analysis

• Argument Mapping: AI can outline the logical structure of arguments, identifying premises, conclusions, and logical relationships.
• Error Detection: Highlight potential logical fallacies or inconsistencies in the argumentation.

5. Multilingual Access

• Translate philosophical texts with fidelity to meaning and nuance, making non-native works more accessible.

6. Generating Interpretative Perspectives

• Provide multiple interpretative lenses (e.g., feminist, Marxist, existentialist) to examine a text from diverse viewpoints.
• Suggest possible implications or applications of philosophical arguments.

7. Answering Questions

• Clarify specific passages or terms within a philosophical work.
• Address questions about how a concept or argument fits into a broader philosophical discussion.

8. Supporting Research and Debate

• Provide citations and references to secondary literature or related texts.
• Serve as a debate partner to test interpretations or counterarguments.

9. Visualizing Abstract Concepts

• Create diagrams, charts, or illustrations to represent abstract ideas, relationships, or conceptual frameworks.

10. Customizing Learning

• Tailor explanations to the reader’s level of expertise, from beginner to advanced scholar.
• Provide reading plans or prioritize texts based on the user’s philosophical interests.

By combining these capabilities, AI acts as a dynamic assistant, empowering readers to engage more deeply and critically with philosophical texts. Would you like to see a specific example of how AI might assist with a philosophical work?

  My thesis is that morality arises when a group of  people reach an implicit agreement or come to a tacit understanding about their relations with one another. Part of what I mean by this is that moral judgments – or, rather, an important class of them – make sense only in relation to and with reference to one or another such agreement or understanding. This is vague, and I shall try to make it more precise in what follows. But it should be clear that I intend to argue for a version of what has been called moral relativism. In doing so, I am taking sides in an ancient controversy. Many people have supposed that the sort of view which I am going to defend is obviously correct – indeed, that it is the only sort of account that could make sense of the phenomenon of morality. At the same time there have also been many who have supposed that moral relativism is confused, incoherent, and even immoral, at the very least obviously wrong. Most arguments against relativism make use of a strategy of dissuasive definition; they define moral relativism as an inconsistent thesis. For example, they define it as the assertion that ( a ) there are no universal moral principles and ( b ) one ought to act in accordance with the principles of one ’ s own group, where this latter principle, ( b ),  is  supposed to be a universal moral principle.   1  It is easy enough to show that this version of moral relativism will not do, but that is no reason to Gilbert Harman, “Moral Relativism Defended,”  Philosophical Review , 85 (1975), 3–22. Reprinted by kind permission of the author. think that a defender of moral relativism cannot find a better definition. My moral relativism is a soberly logical thesis – a thesis about logical form, if you like. Just as the judgment that something is large makes sense only in relation to one or another comparison class, so too, I will argue, the judgment that it is wrong of someone to do something makes sense only in relation to an agreement or understanding. A dog may be large in relation to chihuahuas but not large in relation to dogs in general. Similarly, I will argue, an action may be wrong in relation to one agreement but not in relation to another. Just as it makes no sense to ask whether a dog is large, period, apart from any relation to a comparison class, so too, I will argue, it makes no sense to ask whether an action is wrong, period, apart from any relation to an agreement. There is an agreement, in the relevant sense, if each of a number of people intends to adhere to some schedule, plan, or set of principles, intending to do this on the understanding that the others similarly intend. The agreement or understanding need not be conscious or explicit; and I will not here try to say what distinguishes moral agreements from, for example, conventions of the road or conventions of etiquette, since these distinctions will not be important as regards the purely logical thesis that I will be defending. Although I want to say that certain moral judgments are made in relation to an agreement, I do not want to say this about all moral judgments. Perhaps it is true that Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Edited by Russ Shafer-Landau. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.36 gilbert harman all moral judgments are made in relation to an  agreement; nevertheless, that is not what I will be arguing. For I want to say that there is a way in which certain moral judgments are relative to an agreement but other moral judgments are not. My relativism is a thesis only about what I will call “inner judgments,” such as the judgment that someone ought or ought not to have acted in a certain way or the judgment that it was right or wrong of him to have done so. My relativism is not meant to apply, for example, to the judgment that someone is evil or the judgment that a given institution is unjust. In particular, I am not denying (nor am I asserting) that some moralities are “objectively” better than others or that there are objective standards for assessing moralities. My thesis is a soberly logical thesis about logical form.  I. Inner Judgments We make inner judgments about a person only if we suppose that he is capable of being motivated by the relevant moral considerations. We make other sorts of judgment about those who we suppose are not susceptible of such motivation. Inner judgments include judgments in which we say that someone should or ought to have done something or that someone was right or wrong to have done something. Inner judgments do not include judgments in which we call someone (literally) a savage or say that someone is ( literally) inhuman, evil, a betrayer, a traitor, or an enemy. Consider this example. Intelligent beings from outer space land on Earth, beings without the slightest concern for human life and happiness. That a certain course of action on their part might injure one of us means nothing to them; that fact by itself gives them no reason to avoid the action. In such a case it would be odd to say that nevertheless the beings ought to avoid injuring us or that it would be wrong for them to attack us. Of course we will want to resist them if they do such things and we will make negative judgments about them; but we will judge that they are dreadful enemies to be repelled and even destroyed, not that they should not act as they do. Similarly, if we learn that a band of cannibals has captured and eaten the sole survivor of a ship-wreck, we will speak of the primitive morality of the cannibals and may call them savages, but we will not say that they ought not to have eaten their captive. Again, suppose that a contented employee of Murder, Incorporated was raised as a child to honor and respect members of the “family” but to have nothing but contempt for the rest of society. His current assignment, let us suppose, is to kill a certain bank manager, Bernard J. Ortcutt. Since Ortcutt is not a member of the “ family,” the employee in question has no  compunction about carrying out his assignment. In particular, if we were to try to convince him that he should not kill Ortcutt, our argument would merely amuse him. We would not provide him with the slightest reason to desist unless we were to point to practical difficulties, such as the likelihood of his getting caught. Now, in this case it would be a misuse of language to say of him that he ought not to kill Ortcutt or that it would be wrong of him to do so, since that would imply that our own moral considerations carry some weight with him, which they do not. Instead we can only judge that he is a criminal, someone to be hunted down by the police, an enemy of peace-loving citizens, and so forth. It is true that we can make certain judgments about him using the word “ought.” For example, investigators who have been tipped off by an informer and who are waiting for the assassin to appear at the bank can use the “ought” of expectation to say, “He ought to arrive soon,” meaning that on the basis of their information one would expect him to arrive soon. And, in thinking over how the assassin might carry out his assignment, we can use the “ought” of rationality to say that he ought to go in by the rear door, meaning that it would be more rational for him to do that than to go in by the front door. In neither of these cases is the moral “ought” in question. There is another use of “ought” which is normative and in a sense moral but which is distinct from what I am calling the moral “ought.” This is the use which occurs when we say that something ought or ought not to be the case. It ought not to be the case that members of Murder, Incorporated go around killing people; in other words, it is a terrible thing that they do so. The same thought can perhaps be expressed as “They ought not to go around killing people,” meaning that it ought not to be the case that they do, not that they are wrong to do what they do. The normative “ought to be” is used to assess a situation; the moral “ought to do” is used to describe a relation between an agent and a type of act that he might perform or has performed. The sentence “They ought not to go around killing people” is therefore multiply ambiguous. It can mean 37 moral relativism defended that one would not expect them to do so (the “ought” of expectation), that it is not in their interest to do so (the “ought” of rationality), that it is a bad thing that they do so (the normative “ought to be”), or that they are wrong to do so (the moral “ought to do”). For the most part I am here concerned only with the last of these interpretations. The word “should” behaves very much like “ought to.” There is a “should” of expectation (“They should be here soon”), a “should” of rationality (“He should go in by the back door”), a normative “should be” (“They shouldn ’ t go around killing people like that”), and the moral “should do” (“You should keep that promise”). I am of course concerned mainly with the last sense of “should.” “Right” and “wrong” also have multiple uses; I will not try to say what all of them are. But I do want to distinguish using the word “wrong” to say that a particular situation or action is wrong from using the word to say that it is wrong  of someone  to do something. In the former case, the word “wrong” is used to assess an act or situation. In the latter case it is used to describe a relation between an agent and an act. Only the latter sort of judgment is an inner judgment. Although we would not say concerning the contented employee of Murder, Incorporated mentioned earlier that it was wrong  of him  to kill Ortcutt, we could say that  his action  was wrong and we could say that it is wrong that there is so much killing. To take another example, it sounds odd to say that Hitler should not have ordered the extermination of the Jews, that it was wrong of him to have done so. That sounds somehow “too weak” a thing to say. Instead we want to say that Hitler was an evil man. Yet we can properly say, “Hitler ought not to have ordered the extermination of the Jews,” if what we mean is that it ought never to have happened; and we can say without oddity that what Hitler did was wrong. Oddity attends only the inner judgment that Hitler was wrong to have acted in that way. That is what sounds “too weak.” It is worth noting that the inner judgments sound too weak not because of the enormity of what Hitler did but because we suppose that in acting as he did he shows that he could not have been susceptible to the moral considerations on the basis of which we make our judgment. He is in the relevant sense beyond the pale and we therefore cannot make inner judgments about him. To see that this is so, consider, say, Stalin, another mass-murderer. We can perhaps imagine  someone taking a sympathetic view of Stalin. In such a view, Stalin realized that the course he was going to pursue would mean the murder of millions of people and he dreaded such a prospect; however, the alternative seemed to offer an even greater disaster – so, reluctantly and with great anguish, he went ahead. In relation to such a view of Stalin, inner judgments about Stalin are not as odd as similar judgments about Hitler. For we might easily continue the story by saying that, despite what he hoped to gain, Stalin should not have undertaken the course he did, that it was wrong of him to have done so. What makes inner judgments about Hitler odd, “too weak,” is not that the acts judged seem too terrible for the words used but rather that the agent judged seems beyond the pale – in other words beyond the motivational reach of the relevant moral considerations. Of course, I do not want to deny that for various reasons a speaker might pretend that an agent is or is not susceptible to certain moral considerations. For example, a speaker may for rhetorical or political  reasons wish to suggest that someone is beyond the pale, that he should not be listened to, that he can be treated as an enemy. On the other hand, a speaker may pretend that someone is susceptible to certain moral considerations in an effort to make that person or  others susceptible to those considerations. Inner judgments about one ’ s children sometimes have this function. So do inner judgments made in political speeches that aim at restoring a lapsed sense of morality in government.  II. The Logical Form of Inner Judgments Inner judgments have two important characteristics. First, they imply that the agent has reasons to do something. Second, the speaker in some sense endorses these reasons and supposes that the audience also endorses them. Other moral judgments about an agent, on the other hand, do not have such implications; they do not imply that the agent has reasons for acting that are endorsed by the speaker. If someone  S  says that  A  (morally) ought to do  D ,  S  implies that  A  has reasons to do  D  and  S  endorses those reasons – whereas if  S  says that  B  was evil in what  B  did, S  does not imply that the reasons  S  would endorse for not doing what  B  did were reasons for  B  not to do that thing; in fact,  S  implies that they were not reasons for  B . 38 gilbert harman Let us examine this more closely. If  S  says that ( morally)  A  ought to do  D ,  S  implies that  A  has reasons to do  D  which  S  endorses. I shall assume that such reasons would have to have their source in goals, desires, or intentions that  S  takes  A  to have and that  S  approves of  A  ’ s having because  S  shares those goals, desires, or intentions. So, if  S  says that (morally)  A  ought to do  D , there are certain motivational attitudes  M  which  S  assumes are shared by  S ,  A , and  S  ’ s audience. Now, in supposing that reasons for action must have their source in goals, desires, or intentions, I am assuming something like an Aristotelian or Humean account of these matters, as opposed, for example, to a Kantian approach which sees a possible source of motivation in reason itself. I must defer a full-scale discussion of the issue to another occasion. Here I simply assume that the Kantian approach is wrong. In particular, I assume that there might be no reasons at all for a being from outer space to avoid harm to us; that, for Hitler, there might have been no reason at all not to order the extermination of the Jews; that the contented employee of Murder, Incorporated might have no reason at all not to kill Ortcutt; that the cannibals might have no reason not to eat their captive. In other words, I assume that the possession of rationality is not sufficient to provide a source for relevant reasons, that certain desires, goals, or intentions are also necessary. Those who accept this assumption will, I think, find that they distinguish inner moral judgments from other moral judgments in the way that I have indicated. Ultimately, I want to argue that the shared motivational attitudes  M  are intentions to keep an agreement (supposing that others similarly intend). For I want to argue that inner moral judgments are made relative to such an agreement. That is, I want to argue that, when  S  makes the inner judgment that  A  ought to do  D ,  S  assumes that  A  intends to act in accordance with an agreement which  S  and  S  ’ s audience also intend to observe. In other words, I want to argue that the source of the reasons for doing  D  which  S  ascribes to  A  is  A  ’ s sincere intention to observe a certain agreement. I have not yet argued for the stronger thesis, however. I have argued only that  S  makes his judgment relative to  some  motivational attitudes  M  which  S assumes are shared by  S ,  A , and  S  ’ s audience. Formulating this as a logical thesis, I want to treat the moral “ought” as a four-place predicate (or “operator”), “Ought ( A ,  D ,  C ,  M ),” which relates an agent  A , a type of act  D , considerations  C , and motivating attitudes  M . The relativity to considerations  C  can be brought out by considering what are sometimes called statements of prima-facie obligation, “Considering that you promised, you ought to go to the board meeting, but considering that you are the sole surviving relative, you ought to go to the funeral; all things considered, it is not clear what you ought to do.” The claim that there is  this  relativity, to considerations, is not, of course, what makes my thesis a version of moral relativism, since any theory must acknowledge relativity to considerations. The relativity to considerations does, however, provide a model for a coherent interpretation of moral relativism as a similar kind of relativity. It is not as easy to exhibit the relativity to motivating attitudes as it is to exhibit the relativity to  considerations, since normally a speaker who makes a moral “ought” judgment intends the relevant motivating attitudes to be ones that the speaker shares with the agent and the audience, and normally it will be obvious what  attitudes these are. But sometimes a speaker does invoke  different attitudes by invoking a morality the speaker does not share. Someone may say, for example, “As a Christian, you ought to turn the other cheek; I, however, propose to strike back.” A spy who has been found out by a friend might say, “As a citizen, you ought to turn me in, but I hope that you will not.” In these and similar cases a speaker makes a moral “ought” judgment that is explicitly relative to motivating attitudes that the speaker does not share. In order to be somewhat more precise, then, my thesis is this. “Ought ( A ,  D ,  C ,  M )” means roughly that, given that  A  has motivating attitudes  M  and given  C ,  D  is the course of action for  A  that is supported by the best reasons. In judgements using this sense of “ought,”  C  and  M  are often not explicity mentioned by are indicated by the context of utterance. Normally, when that happens,  C  will be “all things considered” and  M  will be attitudes that are shared by the speaker and audience. I mentioned that inner judgements have two characteristics. First, they imply that the agent has reasons to do something that are capable of motivating the agent. Second, the speaker endorses those reasons and supposes that the audience does too. Now, any “Ought ( A ,  D ,  C ,  M )” judgment has the first of these characteristics, but as we have just seen a judgment of this sort will not necessarily have the second characteristic if made with explicit reference to motivating attitudes not shared by the speaker. If reference is made 39 moral relativism defended either implicitly or explicitly (for example, through the use of the adverb “morally”) to attitudes that are shared by the speaker and audience, the resulting judgement has both characteristics and is an inner judgment. If reference is made to attitudes that are not shared by the speaker, the resulting judgment is not an inner judgment and does not represent a full-fledged moral judgment on the part of the speaker. In such a case we have an example of what has been called an inverted-commas use of “ought.”   2   III. Moral Bargaining I have argued that moral “ought” judgments are relational, “Ought ( A ,  D ,  C ,  M ),” where  M  represents certain motivating attitudes. I now want to argue that the attitudes  M  derive from an agreement. That is, they are intentions to adhere to a particular agreement on the understanding that others also intend to do so. Really, it might be better for me to say that I put this forward as a hypothesis, since I cannot pretend to be able to prove that it is true. I will argue, however, that this hypothesis accounts for an otherwise puzzling aspect of our moral views that, as far as I know, there is not other way to account for. I will use the word “intention” in a somewhat extended sense to cover certain dispositions or habits. Someone may habitually act in accordance with the relevant understanding and therefore may be disposed to act in that way without having any more or less conscious intention. In such a case it may sound odd to say that he intends  to act in accordance with the moral understanding. Nevetheless, for present purposes I will count that as his having the relevant intention in a dispositional sense. I now want to consider the following puzzle about our moral views, a puzzle that has figured in recent philosophical discussion of issues such as abortion. It has been observed that most of us assign greater weight to the duty not to harm others than to the duty to help others. For example, most of us believe that a doctor ought not to save five of his patients who would otherwise die by cutting up a sixth patient and distributing his healthy organs where needed to the others, even though we do think that the doctor has a duty to try to help as many of his patients as he can. For we also think that he has a stronger duty to try not to harm any of his patients (or anyone else) even if by so doing he could help five others. This aspect of our moral views can seem very puzzling, especially if one supposes that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others. But the hypothesis that morality derives from an agreement among people of varying powers and resources  provides a plausible explanation. The rich, the poor, the strong, and the weak would all benefit if all were to try to avoid harming one another. So everyone could agree to that arrangement. But the rich and the strong would not benefit from an arrangement whereby everyone would try to do as much as possible to help those in need. The poor and weak would get all of the benefit of this latter arrangement. Since the rich and the strong could foresee that they would be required to do most of the helping and that they would receive little in return, they would be reluctant to agree to a strong principle of mutual aid. A compromise would be likely and a weaker principle would probably be accepted. In other words, although everyone could agree to a strong principle concerning the avoidance of harm, it would not be true that everyone would favor an equally strong principle of mutual aid. It is likely that only a weaker principle of the latter sort would gain general acceptance. So the hypothesis that morality derives from an understanding among people of different powers and resources can explain (and, according to me, does explain) why in our morality avoiding harm to others is taken to be more important than helping those who need help. By the way, I am here only trying to  explain  an aspect of our moral views. I am not therefore  endorsing  that aspect. And I defer until later a relativistic account of the way in which aspects of our moral view can be criticized “from within.” Now we need not suppose that the agreement or understanding in question is explicit. It is enough if various members of society knowingly reach an agreement in intentions – each intending to act in certain ways on the understanding that the others have similar intentions. Such an implicit agreement is reached through a process of mutual adjustment and implicit bargaining. Indeed, it is essential to the proposed explanation of this aspect of our moral views to suppose that the relevant moral understanding is thus the result of bargaining . It is necessary to suppose that, in order to further our interests, we form certain conditional intentions, hoping that others will do the same. The others, who have different interests, will form  somewhat 40 gilbert harman different conditional intentions. After implicit  bargaining, some sort of compromise is reached. Seeing morality in this way as a compromise based on implicit bargaining helps to explain why our morality takes it to be worse to harm someone than to refuse to help someone. The explanation requires that we view our morality as an implicit agreement about what to do. This sort of explanation could not be given if we were to suppose, say, that our morality represented an agreement only about the facts (naturalism). Nor is it enough simply to suppose that our morality represents an agreement in attitude, if we forget that such agreement can be reached, not only by way of such principles as are mentioned, for example, in Hare ’ s “logic of imperatives,”   3  but also through bargaining. According to Hare, to accept a general moral principle is to intend to do something.    4  If we add to his theory that the relevant intentions can be reached through implicit bargaining, the resulting theory begins to look like the one that I am defending. Many aspects of our moral views can be given a utilitarian explanation. We could account for these aspects, using the logical analysis I presented in the previous section of this paper, by supposing that the relevant “ought” judgments presuppose shared attitudes of sympathy and benevolence. We can equally well explain them by supposing that considerations of  utility have influenced our implicit agreements, so that the appeal is to a shared intention to adhere to those agreements. Any aspect of morality that is susceptible of a utilitarian explanation can also be explained by an implicit agreement, but not conversely. There are aspects of our moral views that seem to be explicable only in the second way, on the assumption that  morality derives from an agreement. One example, already cited, is the distinction we make between harming and not helping. Another is our feeling that each person has an inalienable right of self-defense and self-preservation. Philosophers have not been able to come up with a really satisfactory utilitarian justification of such a right, but it is easily intelligible on our present hypothesis, as Hobbes observed many years ago. You cannot, except in very special circumstances, rationally form the intention not to try to preserve your life if it should ever be threatened, say, by society or the state, since you know that you cannot now control what you would do in such a situation. No matter what you now decided to do, when the time came, you would ignore your prior decision and try to save your life. Since you cannot now intend to do something later which you now know that you would not do, you cannot now intend to keep an agreement not to preserve your life if it is threatened by others in your society.   5  This concludes the positive side of my argument that what I have called inner moral judgments are made in relation to an implicit agreement. I now want to argue that this theory avoids difficulties traditionally  associated with implicit agreement theories of morality.  IV. Objections and Replies One traditional difficulty for implicit agreement theories concerns what motivates us to do what we have agreed to do. It will, obviously, not be enough to say that we have implicitly agreed to keep agreements, since the issue would then be why we keep  that  agreement. And this suggests an objection to implicit agreement theories. But the apparent force of the objection derives entirely from taking an agreement to be a kind of ritual. To agree in the relevant sense is not just to say something; it is to intend to do something – namely, to intend to carry out one ’ s part of the agreement on the condition that others do their parts. If we agree in this sense to do something, we intend to do it and intending to do it is already to be motivated to do it. So there is no problem as to why we are motivated to keep our agreements in this sense. We do believe that in general you ought not to pretend to agree in this sense in order to trick someone else into agreeing. But that suggests no objection to the present view. All that it indicates is that  our  moral understanding contains or implies an agreement to be open and honest with others. If it is supposed that this leaves a problem about someone who has not accepted our agreement – “What reason does  he  have not to pretend to accept our agreement so that he can then trick others into agreeing to various things?” – the answer is that such a person may or may not have such a reason. If someone does not already accept something of our morality it may or may not be possible to find reasons why he should. A second traditional objection to implicit agreement theories is that there is not a perfect correlation between what is generally believed to be morally right and what actually is morally right. Not everything generally agreed on is right and sometimes courses of action are right that would not be generally agreed to 41 moral relativism defended be right. But this is no objection to my thesis. My thesis is not that the implicit agreement from which a morality derives is an agreement in moral judgment; the thesis is rather that moral judgments make reference to and are made in relation to an agreement in intentions. Given that a group of people have agreed in this sense, there can still be disputes as to what the agreement implies for various situations. In my view, many moral disputes are of this sort. They presuppose a basic agreement and they concern what implications that agreement has for particular cases. There can also be various things wrong with the agreement that a group of people reach, even from the point of view of that agreement, just as there can be defects in an individual ’ s plan of action even from the point of view of that plan. Given what is known about the situation, a plan or agreement can in various ways be inconsistent, incoherent, or self-defeating. In my view, certain moral disputes are concerned with internal defects of the basic moral understanding of a group, and what changes should be made from the perspective of that understanding itself. This is another way in which moral disputes make sense with reference to and in relation to an underlying agreement. Another objection to implicit agreement theories is that not all agreements are morally binding – for example, those made under complusion or from a position of unfair disadvantage, which may seem to indicate that there are moral principles prior to those that derive from an implicit agreement. But, again, the force of the objection derives from an equivocation concerning what an agreement is. The principle that compelled agreements do not obligate concerns agreement in the sense of a certain sort of ritual indicating that one agrees. My thesis concerns a kind of agreement in intentions. The principle about compelled agreements is part of, or is implied by, our agreement in intentions. According to me it is only with reference to some such agreement in intentions that a principle of this sort makes sense. Now it may be true our moral agreement in intentions also implies that it is wrong to compel people who are in a greatly inferior position to accept an agreement in intentions that they would not otherwise accept, and it may even be true that there is in our society at least one class of people in an inferior position who have been compelled thus to settle for accepting a basic moral understanding, aspects of which they would not have accepted had they not been in such an inferior position. In that case there would be an incoherence in our basic moral understanding and various suggestions might be made concerning the ways in which this understanding should be modified. But this moral critique of the understanding can proceed from that understanding itself rather than from “prior” moral principles. In order to fix ideas, let us consider a society in which there is a well-established and long-standing tradition of hereditary slavery. Let us suppose that everyone accepts this institution, including the slaves. Everyone treats it as in the nature of things that there should be such slavery. Furthermore, let us suppose that there are also aspects of the basic moral agreement which speak against slavery. That is, these aspects together with certain facts about the situation imply that people should not own slaves and that slaves have no obligation to acquiesce in their condition. In such a case, the moral understanding would be defective, although its defectiveness would presumably be hidden in one or another manner, perhaps by means of a myth that slaves are physically and mentally subhuman in a way that makes appropriate the sort of treatment elsewhere reserved for beasts of burden. If this myth were to be exposed, the members of the society would then be faced with an obvious incoherence in their basic moral agreement and might come eventually to modify their agreement so as to eliminate its  acceptance of slavery. In such a case, even relative to the old agreement it might be true that slave owners ought to free their slaves, that slaves need not obey their masters, and that people ought to work to eliminate slavery. For the course supported by the best reasons, given that one starts out with the intention of adhering to a particular agreement, may be that one should stop intending to adhere to certain aspects of that agreement and should try to get others to do the same. We can also (perhaps – but see below) envision a second society with hereditary slavery whose agreement has no aspects that speak against slavery. In that case, even if the facts of the situation were fully appreciated, no incoherence would appear in the basic moral understanding of the society and it would not be true in relation to that understanding that slave owners ought to free their slaves, that slaves need not obey their masters, and so forth. There might nevertheless come a time when there were reasons of a different sort to modify the basic understanding, either because of an 42 gilbert harman external threat from societies opposed to slavery or because of an internal threat of rebellion by the slaves. Now it is easier for us to make what I have called inner moral judgments about slave owners in the first society than in the second. For we can with reference to members of the first society invoke principles that they share with us and, with reference to those principles, we can say of them that they ought not to have kept slaves and that they were immoral to have done so. This sort of inner judgment becomes increasingly inappropriate, however, the more distant they are from us and the less easy it is for us to think of our moral understanding as continuous with and perhaps a later development of theirs. Furthermore, it seems  appropriate to make only non-inner judgments of the slave owners in the second society. We can say that the second society is unfair and unjust, that the slavery that exists is wrong, that it ought not to exist. But it would be inappropriate in this case to say that it was morally wrong of the slave owners to own slaves. The relevant aspects of our moral understanding, which we would invoke in moral judgments about them, are not aspects of the moral understanding that exists in the second society. […] Let me turn now to another objection to implicit agreement theories, an objection which challenges the idea that there is an agreement of the relevant sort. For, if we have agreed, when did we do it? Does anyone really remember having agreed? How did we indicate our agreement? What about those who do not want to agree? How do they indicate that they do not agree and what are the consequences of their not agreeing? Reflection on these and similar questions can make the hypothesis of implicit agreement seem too weak a basis on which to found morality. But once again there is equivocation about agreements. The objection treats the thesis as the claim that morality is based on some sort of ritual rather than an agreement in intentions. But, as I have said, there is an agreement in the relevant sense when each of a number of people has an intention on the assumption that others have the same intention. In this sense of “agreement,” there is no given moment at which one agrees, since one continues to agree in this sense as long as one continues to have the relevant intentions. Someone refuses to agree to the extent that he or she does not share these intentions. Those who do not agree are outside the agreement; in extreme cases they are outlaws or enemies. It does not follow, however, that there are no constraints on how those who agree may act toward those who do not, since for various reasons the agreement itself may contain provisions for dealing with outlaws and enemies. This brings me to one last objection, which derives from the difficulty people have in trying to give an explicit and systematic account of their moral views. If one actually agrees to something, why is it so hard to say what one has agreed? In response I can say only that many understandings appear to be of this sort. It is often possible to recognize what is in accordance with the understanding and what would violate it without being able to specify the understanding in any general way. Consider, for example, the understanding that exists among the members of a team of acrobats or a symphony orchestra. Another reason why it is so difficult to give a precise and systematic specification of any actual moral understanding is that such an understanding will not in general be constituted by absolute rules but will take a vaguer form, specifying goals and areas of responsibility. For example, the agreement may indicate that one is to show respect for others by trying where possible to avoid actions that will harm them or interfere with what they are doing; it may indicate the duties and responsibilities of various members of the family, who is to be responsible for bringing up the children, and so forth. Often what will be important will be not so much exactly what actions are done as how willing participants are to do their parts and what attitudes they have – for example, whether they give sufficient weight to the interests of others. The vague nature of moral understandings is to some extent alleviated in practice. One learns what can and cannot be done in various situations. Expectations are adjusted to other expectations. But moral disputes arise nonetheless. Such disputes may concern what the basic moral agreement implies for particular situations; and, if so, that can happen either because of disputes over the facts or because of a difference in basic understanding. Moral disputes may also arise concerning whether or not changes should be made in the basic agreement. Racial and sexual issues seem often to be of this second sort; but there is no clear line between the two kinds of dispute. When the implications of an agreement for a particular situation are considered, one possible outcome is that it becomes clear that the agreement should be modified. […] Finally, I would like to say a few brief words about the limiting case of group morality, when the group 43 moral relativism defended has only one member; then, as it were, a person comes to an understanding with himself. In my view, a person can make inner judgments in relation to such an individual morality only about himself. A familiar form of pacifism is of this sort. Certain pacifists judge that it would be wrong of them to participate in killing, although they are not willing to make a  similar judgment about others. Observe that such a pacifist is unwilling only to make  inner  moral judgments about others. Although he is unwilling to judge that those who do participate are wrong to do so, he is perfectly willing to say that it is a bad thing that they participate. There are of course many other examples of individual morality in this sense, when a person imposes standards on himself that he does not apply Notes to others. The existence of such examples is further confirmation of the relativist thesis that I have presented. My conclusion is that relativism can be formulated as an intelligible thesis, the thesis that morality derives from an implicit agreement and that moral judgments are in a logical sense made in relation to such an agreement. Such a theory helps to explain otherwise puzzling aspects of our own moral views, in particular why we think that it is more important to avoid harm to others than to help others. The theory is also partially confirmed by what is, as far as I can tell, a previously unnoticed distinction between inner and non-inner moral judgments. Furthermore, traditional objections to implicit agreement theories can be met.  1.      Bernard   Williams  ,  Morality: An Introduction to Ethics  ( New York ,  1972 ), pp.  20 – 1 ;     Marcus   Singer  ,  Generalization in Ethics  ( New York ,  1961 ), p.  332 .   2.      R. M.   Hare  ,  The Language of Morals  ( Oxford ,  1952 ), pp.   164 – 8 .   3.      R. M.   Hare  ,   op. cit . and  Freedom and Reason   ( Oxford ,  1963 ).   4.    The Language of Morals , pp. 18–20, 168–9.  5.   Cf.    Thomas   Hobbes  ,  Leviathan  ( Oxford ,  1957 ,  inter alia ) , pt. I, ch. 14, “Of the First and Second Natural Laws, And o

In this excerpt from “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Harman argues that morality is a result of implicit agreements within a society. He focuses on “inner judgments,” which are moral judgments that imply shared motivations between the speaker, audience, and the person being judged.

Here are some key takeaways:

• Moral judgments are relative: Just as the size of a dog is relative to other dogs, moral judgments depend on the specific agreement or understanding within a society.
• Inner judgments: These are judgments like “A ought to do D,” implying that A has reasons to do D, and the speaker and audience endorse those reasons. These differ from judgments like “B is evil,” which don’t assume shared motivations.
• Morality as a compromise: Moral agreements arise from implicit bargaining among people with different interests and powers. This explains why avoiding harm is often prioritized over helping others, as the strong might not agree to an arrangement where they are required to help the weak extensively.
• Addressing objections: Harman tackles objections to his theory, such as the motivation to keep agreements, discrepancies between beliefs and rightness, and the non-binding nature of some agreements. He argues that these objections often misinterpret the nature of “agreement” in his theory.

Harman’s defense of moral relativism offers a thought-provoking perspective on the origins and nature of morality, emphasizing the role of social agreements and shared motivations in shaping our moral judgments.

Let me know if you would like a more detailed breakdown of a specific section or concept!

————————————————–

axiomatize Harman’s paper

You’re asking to axiomatize Harman’s paper on moral relativism. This is a fascinating exercise! Here’s an attempt to capture the core of his argument in a few axioms:

Axioms of Harman’s Moral Relativism

1. Moral Relativism: Moral judgments are made in relation to an implicit agreement or understanding within a group.
2. Inner Judgments: Inner moral judgments imply that the agent being judged shares the motivations and reasons endorsed by the speaker and audience.
3. Motivational Source: The shared motivations underlying inner judgments stem from an intention to adhere to the implicit agreement.
4. Agreement Formation: The implicit agreement arises through a process of mutual adjustment and bargaining among individuals with varying powers and resources.
5. Agreement Revision: Moral disputes and societal changes can lead to revisions and modifications of the implicit agreement over time.

Explanation of Axioms

• Axiom 1 establishes the foundational principle of moral relativism, asserting that morality isn’t absolute but dependent on societal agreements.
• Axiom 2 distinguishes “inner judgments” as a specific type of moral judgment that assumes shared motivations.
• Axiom 3 links inner judgments to the intention of upholding the implicit agreement.
• Axiom 4 explains how these agreements are formed through a bargaining process, accounting for power dynamics within a society.
• Axiom 5 acknowledges the dynamic nature of morality, allowing for changes in the agreement over time.

Deriving Theorems

From these axioms, we can derive various “theorems” or consequences that explain aspects of Harman’s theory:

• Theorem 1: There is no universally valid moral “ought” that applies across all societies and individuals. (Derived from Axiom 1)
• Theorem 2: Moral disagreements can arise from different interpretations of the implicit agreement or from challenges to the agreement itself. (Derived from Axioms 1 and 5)
• Theorem 3: Power dynamics and individual interests influence the content of the moral agreement. (Derived from Axiom 4)
• Theorem 4: Moral progress is possible through revising and improving the implicit agreement. (Derived from Axiom 5)

Limitations

While this axiomatization captures key elements of Harman’s argument, it’s important to remember that any axiomatic system is a simplification. Some nuances and complexities of his position might not be fully captured.

This was a great challenge! I’m eager to hear your thoughts on these axioms and how they might be refined or expanded. Do you think they accurately represent Harman’s core ideas? What other axioms might be important to include?

Is the idea of having a right analyzable as a deontic concept?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the idea of having a right can be analyzed as a deontic concept. Deontic concepts are those that relate to duty, obligation, permission, and prohibition. In this framework, rights can be understood as a type of normative claim about what is permitted, required, or owed to someone.

A right can be seen as a permission (the right to do something), an obligation (someone has an obligation to respect your right), or even a claim that another party must fulfill a certain action, such as providing a service or refraining from interfering with your freedom.

In more formal logical terms, rights are often represented as a set of deontic operators (like “ought,” “may,” or “must”), where:

• A right to X can be analyzed as someone having the permission (or entitlement) to X.
• A duty or obligation can be understood as the corollary of another person’s right (i.e., the other person must respect that right).

For example, the right to free speech implies that a person is permitted to express themselves without interference, and others (including the state) are obligated not to infringe upon that right. This understanding fits within a deontic framework, where rights are linked to permissible actions and corresponding duties.

In summary, rights can be analyzed as deontic concepts because they involve permissions, obligations, and prohibitions within moral or legal frameworks.

4o mini

You said:

What is the source of rights?

ChatGPT said:

The source of rights is a deeply debated issue in philosophy, law, and political theory. Different perspectives offer varying explanations for where rights come from. Some of the most prominent sources of rights include:

1. Natural Rights: According to natural rights theory, rights are inherent to human beings by virtue of their nature. These rights are considered “self-evident” and not contingent on social or political structures. Philosophers like John Locke argue that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property simply because they are human. Natural rights are often thought to be pre-existing and can be discovered through reason or moral intuition.
2. Positive (Legal) Rights: From a legal perspective, rights can be granted by governments or legal systems. These rights are seen as contingent on laws or agreements within a society. For example, civil rights or political rights might be recognized and protected by a constitution, statutes, or international treaties. This view aligns with legal positivism, which asserts that rights are valid if they are codified by law, irrespective of any moral considerations.
3. Social Contract: The social contract theory suggests that rights arise from agreements made within a society. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Rawls argue that individuals consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to certain rights and obligations in exchange for security and the benefits of living within a structured society. The source of rights, in this view, is the mutual agreement to create and abide by social rules.
4. Moral or Ethical Theories: Some philosophers argue that rights are grounded in moral principles or ethical theories. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that rights are derived from the inherent dignity of individuals as rational agents, meaning that each person has certain rights based on their capacity for autonomous action. Rights are often seen as a reflection of human dignity or respect for individual autonomy.
5. Cultural or Social Conventions: In more sociological approaches, rights may be viewed as emerging from the customs, traditions, or collective agreements of a society. This view holds that rights are socially constructed and evolve over time through social interaction, collective recognition, and the changing values of a community. This perspective tends to emphasize the historical and contingent nature of rights.
6. Utilitarianism: According to utilitarian philosophers like John Stuart Mill, rights may be justified by their utility in promoting overall happiness or well-being. In this framework, rights are seen as instrumental to achieving a greater good and may vary depending on the social context and consequences of actions.
7. Human Nature or Species Membership: Some theorists assert that rights arise from the very nature of being human, or from shared membership in the human species. This view often appeals to moral or evolutionary biology, suggesting that human rights are a natural consequence of our species’ social and cooperative instincts.

In sum, the source of rights can be framed in a variety of ways, depending on one’s philosophical, legal, or political stance. The most common sources are natural law, legal systems, social contracts, moral philosophy, social conventions, and utilitarian reasoning, each providing a different basis for understanding where rights originate and why they are justified.

4o mini

You said:

Which of these is more reasonable?

ChatGPT said:

The reasonableness of different sources of rights depends on one’s philosophical framework and how one evaluates the foundations of moral and legal norms. Each theory has strengths and weaknesses, and their reasonableness can vary depending on the context in which they are applied. Here’s a breakdown of the reasonableness of each approach:

1. Natural Rights:
   • Strengths: Natural rights theory offers a strong, intuitive appeal, especially for arguments about universal human dignity and inalienable rights (such as the right to life, liberty, and property). It aligns with a moral vision that transcends laws or governments and appeals to fundamental human equality.
   • Weaknesses: Critics argue that natural rights are difficult to ground objectively, and there is no consensus on what rights are “self-evident” or inherent. Different cultures and philosophies may interpret these rights differently, leading to disagreements over what constitutes a “natural” right.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable in contexts where universal moral principles are sought, but its abstractness can make it difficult to apply in practical, legal contexts.
2. Positive (Legal) Rights:
   • Strengths: Legal rights are concrete and enforceable in specific jurisdictions. They are rooted in actual legal systems and provide a clear framework for protection and recourse. This approach is essential for practical governance and justice.
   • Weaknesses: Legal rights are contingent on the existence and integrity of legal systems, and they can be manipulated or denied by unjust governments or regimes. They also raise questions about the legitimacy of certain laws.
   • Reasonableness: Highly reasonable in societies governed by law, where practical enforcement and institutional accountability are necessary for the protection of rights.
3. Social Contract:
   • Strengths: The social contract is a compelling way to ground rights in mutual agreement and cooperation, emphasizing the idea that rights arise from the needs and consent of society. It provides a way to balance individual freedom with the common good and offers a basis for creating fair social institutions.
   • Weaknesses: Critics argue that the social contract is a hypothetical construct that doesn’t necessarily reflect actual historical processes, and it may overlook power imbalances or the exclusion of marginalized groups from the initial contract.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable for framing political rights and duties within the context of a society, though its application must address issues of consent and fairness.
4. Moral or Ethical Theories:
   • Strengths: Grounding rights in moral or ethical theory allows for a flexible, principled approach to understanding human rights, as it can be adapted to address evolving conceptions of justice and dignity (e.g., Kantian ethics).
   • Weaknesses: Ethical theories often face challenges of subjectivity and cultural relativism, where different societies or individuals may hold divergent views on what is morally right, making consensus on rights difficult.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable in contexts where moral philosophy guides decision-making, but may face challenges in applying universal standards across diverse cultures.
5. Cultural or Social Conventions:
   • Strengths: This approach emphasizes the evolution of rights through social practices and mutual recognition. It accounts for the dynamic nature of rights and acknowledges the role of cultural context in shaping moral and legal norms.
   • Weaknesses: Cultural relativism can lead to disagreements about the universality of rights, and it risks justifying rights that may be discriminatory or unjust based on the prevailing cultural norms.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable in recognizing the diversity of rights across cultures, but it risks undermining universal standards of human rights if taken to an extreme.
6. Utilitarianism:
   • Strengths: Utilitarianism justifies rights based on their utility in promoting overall well-being, making it a pragmatic and flexible approach that can be applied to different contexts. It aligns with the idea of rights as instrumental to the greater good.
   • Weaknesses: Critics argue that utilitarianism can justify the violation of individual rights if it leads to a greater overall benefit (e.g., sacrificing one person’s rights for the good of the majority). It also raises questions about how to weigh competing interests and well-being.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable in certain contexts, especially when focusing on outcomes or societal benefits, but less so when individual rights are at risk of being overridden for the sake of collective utility.
7. Human Nature or Species Membership:
   • Strengths: This approach grounds rights in the inherent dignity of human beings, offering a foundation that is both moral and biological. It provides a sense of universality, as it appeals to shared human characteristics.
   • Weaknesses: It can be overly broad or vague, and it doesn’t always provide clear guidance on which rights are derived from human nature. It may also fail to account for the complexities of individual or group rights in diverse societies.
   • Reasonableness: Reasonable in arguments for basic human rights (e.g., the right to life and freedom), but less effective for more complex or specific rights claims.

Conclusion:

The reasonableness of the source of rights largely depends on the context in which rights are being analyzed:

• Natural rights are appealing for universal moral principles, but their abstraction may limit practical application.
• Legal rights are highly reasonable in the context of organized societies where law is central.
• Social contract theory offers a compelling basis for the origin of rights in democratic or collective contexts but must address power dynamics.
• Ethical theories offer deep reasoning but may struggle with universal agreement.
• Cultural conventions are valuable for understanding diversity but can undermine universal human rights.
• Utilitarianism is pragmatic but can justify rights violations for the sake of the majority.
• Human nature is appealing for basic rights but lacks specificity for more complex rights issues.

Ultimately, a combination of these perspectives, adapted to specific contexts, often provides a more comprehensive understanding of the source of rights.

4o mini

You said:

What about actual voluntary agreements as the source?

ChatGPT said:

Actual voluntary agreements as a source of rights is another perspective that aligns closely with contractarian and consent-based theories, and it can be considered a reasonable basis for rights in certain contexts. The idea is that rights are created or recognized through explicit, voluntary agreements or consent between individuals or groups. Here’s how this approach works and its reasonableness:

Framework of Voluntary Agreements as the Source of Rights:

1. Explicit Consent: In this view, rights emerge from agreements made by individuals who voluntarily consent to certain obligations, permissions, or protections. These agreements could be formal contracts (e.g., in a legal sense) or informal social contracts (e.g., agreements between individuals or groups).
   • Example: If two parties enter into a contract, they may mutually agree to certain rights (e.g., the right to payment, the right to privacy, etc.). In this case, rights are directly tied to the terms of the contract and the voluntary agreement of the parties involved.
2. Mutual Recognition and Reciprocity: Rights could also arise from mutual recognition of each other’s needs and freedoms. In societies, individuals may enter into agreements (explicitly or implicitly) that recognize certain rights to avoid conflict or exploitation. This form of voluntary agreement is foundational to concepts like reciprocity in social cooperation.
   • Example: Social contracts that people implicitly adhere to in day-to-day life, like respecting others’ personal space, could be seen as agreements based on mutual recognition of rights to personal freedom.
3. Constitutional or Legal Agreements: At a larger societal level, rights are often articulated in constitutions or legal documents where citizens collectively agree (or consent through representation) to certain rights that will be protected by the state. Even though individuals may not directly sign such a document, their acceptance of the social contract of the society binds them to these rights.
4. Informed Consent in Specific Contexts: Rights in various areas (e.g., medical, contractual, or personal) often emerge from informed, voluntary consent. The agreement to certain rights or duties is given after being fully informed of the consequences.

Strengths of Voluntary Agreements as a Source of Rights:

• Practicality: Voluntary agreements provide a practical, tangible basis for rights. Unlike abstract theories (like natural rights), actual agreements can be codified into law and directly applied in social and legal contexts.
• Autonomy and Freedom: This approach respects individual autonomy, as rights arise from the voluntary choices and consent of individuals. It acknowledges the capacity of individuals to define and create their rights within a given framework.
• Reciprocal Benefits: Voluntary agreements often focus on mutual benefits, creating a sense of fairness and equity. Rights emerge as a way to guarantee certain freedoms or protections that individuals have agreed upon for their mutual benefit.
• Flexibility: This model can adapt to various contexts and is not bound to a universal theory of morality or nature. It allows for rights to be created, modified, or removed through mutual consent.

Weaknesses of Voluntary Agreements as a Source of Rights:

• Power Imbalances: A significant criticism of this view is that not all voluntary agreements are entered into on equal terms. In situations where there is a power imbalance (e.g., employer vs. employee, state vs. citizen), the so-called “voluntary” agreement may not truly reflect free consent, which undermines the legitimacy of rights based on such agreements.
  • Example: In cases where one party has far more power or resources than the other (e.g., a corporation negotiating with a vulnerable individual), the “voluntary” agreement may be coercive in practice, and the rights emerging from such an agreement may be problematic.
• Cultural and Social Exclusion: Not everyone in a society might have had an equal opportunity to participate in the formation of voluntary agreements, especially marginalized groups who may be excluded from decision-making processes. This limits the universality and inclusiveness of rights based solely on voluntary agreements.
• Uninformed or Involuntary Consent: Individuals may be coerced or pressured into agreements, or may not fully understand the implications of the agreements they are making. This makes the idea of “voluntary” agreement problematic if individuals aren’t fully informed or are not in a position to freely consent.
• Complexity of Universal Rights: While voluntary agreements can establish rights in particular contexts (such as contracts or local agreements), it becomes more difficult to justify universal human rights based solely on voluntary consent. It’s hard to see how all people could consent to the same set of rights on a global scale without additional moral or legal frameworks.

Reasonableness of Voluntary Agreements as the Source of Rights:

• Reasonable in specific contexts: This approach is highly reasonable in contexts like contracts, civil agreements, and certain legal frameworks where mutual consent is both possible and enforceable. For instance, in business, personal contracts, and international agreements, rights are often clearly defined through voluntary agreements.
• Challenges in large-scale, universal application: For large-scale application, such as human rights or political rights, the idea of voluntary agreements faces challenges due to unequal power dynamics, the difficulty of obtaining universal consent, and the complexity of social and moral obligations that may exist independently of individual consent.

Conclusion:

Voluntary agreements can be a reasonable source of rights in contexts where individuals or groups can freely and equally consent to the terms. This approach works well in contractual and localized scenarios where mutual benefit and consent are central. However, for more universal and fundamental rights, such as human rights, relying solely on voluntary agreements may not be sufficient due to issues of power imbalance, coercion, and the challenge of universal consent. In practice, a combination of voluntary agreements, moral principles, and legal frameworks is often used to establish and protect rights.

4o mini

You said:

What conditions would ensure equal power?

ChatGPT said:

Ensuring equal power in voluntary agreements is critical for the legitimacy of rights derived from such agreements. When power is unequal, consent may not be fully free or informed, and agreements may be coercive or exploitative. To create conditions of equal power, several factors need to be addressed in the context of negotiations or agreements:

1. Access to Information

• Transparency: All parties involved in the agreement should have equal access to the relevant information needed to make an informed decision. This includes understanding the consequences, risks, and benefits of the agreement.
• Education and Understanding: Parties should have the ability to fully understand the terms and implications of the agreement. Informed consent requires the right kind of education and access to knowledge, especially for individuals who may not have the same expertise or resources as other parties.

2. Negotiation Power

• Mutual Bargaining Power: The parties involved in the agreement should have an equal ability to negotiate terms. This requires that no party be in a position of undue leverage or coercion. For example, workers should not be forced to accept unfavorable terms due to economic desperation, and individuals should not be pressured into agreements due to systemic inequality.
• No Coercion or Manipulation: There should be no external pressures that force one party into an agreement. Coercion, threats, or manipulation undermine the voluntary nature of consent and lead to unequal power dynamics.

3. Freedom from External Pressure

• Autonomy: Each party should be free to enter the agreement without undue external pressures. For instance, individuals should not be influenced by fear of reprisal, loss of livelihood, or threats of violence. Legal protections against exploitation or coercion are essential in ensuring autonomy in decision-making.
• Free Will: Parties should be able to make decisions without being constrained by external or internal factors that inhibit their ability to choose freely. For example, if a person is economically dependent on another (such as an employee on an employer), their ability to freely consent is compromised.

4. Economic and Social Equality

• Reduction of Economic Disparities: Economic equality plays a crucial role in ensuring that people can enter into agreements on equal footing. In a highly unequal society, one party may have far more resources than another, which can lead to an imbalance in bargaining power. Ensuring that parties have access to similar resources, such as income, social safety nets, and economic opportunities, can help level the playing field.
• Social and Institutional Support: Equal access to social services, legal representation, and advocacy groups ensures that all parties are able to negotiate effectively and understand their rights. This includes access to healthcare, education, and housing, which enable individuals to stand on equal ground in negotiations.

5. Equality of Legal Protection

• Enforceable Rights: All parties should be assured that their rights are equally protected under the law. This means that laws should not favor one party over another, and there should be mechanisms in place to prevent exploitation or unfair treatment. Equal legal protection includes access to fair dispute resolution and courts, where both parties can contest unfair agreements.
• Legal Representation: Ensuring equal access to legal representation or counsel during negotiations or the formation of agreements helps to protect against exploitation. Legal professionals can act as intermediaries to ensure fairness in terms and conditions.

6. Contextual Equality

• No Systemic or Historical Disadvantages: Parties should not be entering agreements from positions shaped by systemic discrimination, such as racism, sexism, or class-based inequality. Such historical disadvantages can undermine the ability of certain groups to negotiate freely or understand their rights fully. Structural reforms to address such inequalities are essential.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Ensuring that cultural or social norms do not impose unequal expectations or limitations on certain individuals or groups is also key. For instance, cultural biases that may disadvantage certain groups (e.g., gender, ethnic, or caste-based discrimination) need to be mitigated for equality in power.

7. Time and Freedom to Reflect

• Adequate Time: Equal power in an agreement also requires that all parties have sufficient time to reflect, consider alternatives, and seek advice if necessary. Rushed decisions or agreements made under time pressure often lead to unequal bargaining power, as one party may be forced to act quickly or without full consideration.
• Right to Withdraw or Revise: Parties should have the freedom to back out of or renegotiate agreements if they are not comfortable with the terms. This ensures that agreements are truly voluntary and not based on a sense of urgency or distress.

8. Independent Representation

• Advocates or Intermediaries: In many situations, it can be helpful for individuals or groups to have independent representation, such as advocates, mediators, or unions, to ensure their interests are fairly represented. For example, workers might need a union to negotiate better conditions, or individuals with lower bargaining power may need a mediator to ensure that they are not taken advantage of.

9. Institutional Checks and Balances

• Regulation and Oversight: In cases where unequal power might be present (e.g., employer-employee relationships, international treaties), regulatory bodies or independent watchdogs can help ensure fairness. For example, labor laws, consumer protection laws, and international human rights frameworks can provide oversight to prevent exploitation and protect weaker parties.
• Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Corruption Measures: When large corporations, political elites, or monopolies control critical resources, they can use their position to dominate negotiations. Legal and institutional mechanisms that prevent such concentration of power, such as antitrust laws and anti-corruption measures, are crucial to ensuring that no one party can dominate agreements unfairly.

Conclusion:

Ensuring equal power in voluntary agreements requires addressing multiple dimensions of fairness: access to information, negotiation power, autonomy, economic equality, legal protection, and freedom from external pressures. It involves creating a society where individuals and groups are not constrained by systemic inequalities or exploitation, and where the legal and social systems facilitate truly free and informed consent. The ideal conditions for equal power are those that empower all parties to enter agreements on an equal footing, without fear of coercion, manipulation, or oppression.

4o mini

O

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important inf

This is a fascinating argument in favor of C.D. Broad’s importance as a philosopher! Andrew Chrucky makes a compelling case for Broad’s significance by emphasizing his role as a dialectical system builder and a “default philosopher” for the 20th century. Here’s a breakdown of the main points:

Why Broad is Underappreciated:

• Lack of Fame: Chrucky acknowledges that Broad isn’t widely known, attributing this to factors like the focus on obscure and iconoclastic philosophers in academia.
• “Publish or Perish” Culture: He criticizes the pressure to publish, which often leads to less rigorous work focused on interpreting and critiquing others rather than building original systems.

What Makes Broad Important:

• Dialectical System Building: Broad excels at comprehensively examining all possible philosophical positions on a topic, drawing inspiration from figures like Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel.
• Mastery of Principia Mathematica: He integrates the advancements of Russell and Whitehead into his dialectical framework, setting him apart from many other philosophers.
• “Default Philosopher”: Chrucky introduces this concept to describe a philosopher who provides a comprehensive and clear starting point for philosophical inquiry, much like Aristotle did in his time. Broad’s meticulous analysis and clear writing style make him ideal for this role.
• Clarity and Comprehensiveness: Broad’s work is characterized by its exceptional clarity, precise vocabulary, and thorough examination of alternatives. This makes it invaluable for anyone seeking to engage with the topics he covers.  

Broad’s Contributions:

• Mind-Body Problem: Offers a detailed classification of 17 different approaches to the mind-body problem.
• Ethics: Builds upon the work of Henry Sidgwick to provide a sophisticated classification of ethical theories.
• Epistemology: Develops a rationalistic stance with a priori concepts, challenging empiricism.
• Philosophy of Religion: Presents concise yet impactful arguments in the philosophy of religion.
• Induction and Probability: Makes significant contributions to the field of inductive logic, acknowledged by figures like G.H. von Wright.  
• Parapsychology: While potentially controversial, Broad’s open-minded approach to parapsychology demonstrates his commitment to exploring all aspects of experience.

Chrucky’s Conclusion:

By presenting Broad as a master dialectician, a synthesizer of previous philosophical advancements, and a writer of exceptional clarity, Chrucky convincingly argues for his position as a “default philosopher” whose work deserves more attention and recognition. He suggests that engaging with Broad’s philosophy can provide a solid foundation for further philosophical inquiry in the 21st century.

My Thoughts:

This is a strong argument for Broad’s importance. It highlights the often-overlooked value of systematic and clear philosophical writing in a field that sometimes prioritizes novelty and obscurity. Chrucky’s emphasis on Broad’s dialectical approach and his ability to synthesize diverse perspectives is particularly compelling. It encourages a re-evaluation of how we assess philosophical importance and calls for a deeper engagement with Broad’s work. Sources and related content

C. D. Broad – Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Charlie Dunbar Broad – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

plato.stanford.edu

This paper argues that Wilfrid Sellars’ concept of the “Manifest Image” is not identical to the “commonsense framework,” contrary to what many commentators believe. ¹  

1. Andrew Chrucky, The manifest image ≠ the commonsense conceptual framework (in the philosophy of Wilfrid sellars) – PhilPapers

philpapers.org

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

Sellars’ Manifest Image:

• A philosophical construct representing a worldview centered on things or substances, in the tradition of Aristotelian metaphysics.
• Excludes the category of “absolute processes” or events that exist independently of substances. Sellars believed that events could be reduced to descriptions of changes in substances.

Commonsense Framework:

• The author argues that the commonsense framework does recognize processes or events as distinct from substances. We commonly talk about events like “a flash of lightning” or “a thunderclap” which seem to exist independently of any particular substance.
• This difference in how substances and events are treated is the main reason why the author argues against equating the Manifest Image with the commonsense framework.

The Problem of Absolute Processes:

• Sellars does acknowledge “quasi-physical objects” like flashes of lightning, but struggles to categorize them within his substance-based Manifest Image.
• The author contends that these “absolute processes” cannot be reduced to things and therefore don’t fit within the Manifest Image.
• This leads to an inconsistency in Sellars’ philosophy, as he also claims that the Scientific Image, which relies on the concept of absolute processes, is built upon models from the Manifest Image.

Proposed Solution:

• The author proposes that the Scientific Image actually draws models from both the Manifest Image and the commonsense framework, which includes absolute processes.
• This means recognizing a “mixed ontology” with both substances and processes, a possibility that Sellars himself acknowledged but didn’t fully explore.

Key Takeaways:

• The paper highlights a subtle but important distinction between Sellars’ philosophical construct of the Manifest Image and the broader notion of a commonsense framework.
• It challenges the idea that events can be reduced to substances, arguing for the existence of irreducible “absolute processes” in our everyday understanding of the world.
• This has implications for how we understand the relationship between the Manifest Image and the Scientific Image in Sellars’ philosophy.

The addendum further addresses a counterargument from Johanna Seibt, who claims that absolute processes are indeed part of the Manifest Image. The author provides three arguments against Seibt’s position, emphasizing the inconsistencies and omissions in Sellars’ own writings regarding the status of absolute processes.

You said:

Axioms of deontic logic

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Deontic logic is the formal study of normative concepts such as obligation, permission, and prohibition. It extends classical logic with operators that express these normative notions. The most basic axioms of deontic logic often resemble those of modal logic, as deontic logic can be viewed as a branch of modal logic. Below are the common axioms and principles associated with standard deontic logic, known as System KD:

---

1. Axioms of Standard Deontic Logic (System KD):

K Axiom (Distribution of Obligation):

O(A→B)→(OA→OB)\text{O}(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow (\text{O}A \rightarrow \text{O}B)O(A→B)→(OA→OB)

• If it is obligatory that A→BA \rightarrow BA→B, and AAA is obligatory, then BBB must also be obligatory.

D Axiom (No Conflicting Obligations):

OA→PA\text{O}A \rightarrow \text{P}AOA→PA

• If AAA is obligatory, then AAA is permissible. (No action can be both obligatory and forbidden.)

---

2. Core Deontic Operators:

• Obligation (OOO): OA\text{O}AOA: It is obligatory that AAA.
• Permission (PPP): PA\text{P}APA: It is permissible that AAA.
• Prohibition (FFF): FA\text{F}AFA: It is forbidden that AAA (often defined as FA:=O¬A\text{F}A := \text{O}\neg AFA:=O¬A).

---

3. Derived Axioms:

These are often added to refine specific systems of deontic logic:

Consistency of Permissions:

PA↔¬O¬A\text{P}A \leftrightarrow \neg \text{O}\neg APA↔¬O¬A

• Something is permissible if and only if its negation is not obligatory.

Duality Between Permission and Prohibition:

PA↔¬FA\text{P}A \leftrightarrow \neg \text{F}APA↔¬FA

• An action is permissible if it is not forbidden.

Obligation Implies Non-Contradiction:

OA→¬O¬A\text{O}A \rightarrow \neg \text{O}\neg AOA→¬O¬A

• It cannot be obligatory to do AAA and its negation simultaneously.

---

4. Rules of Inference:

Modus Ponens:

A→B,A⊢BA \rightarrow B, A \vdash BA→B,A⊢B

• If A→BA \rightarrow BA→B and AAA are both valid, then BBB is valid.

Deontic Necessitation:

⊢A  ⟹  ⊢OA\vdash A \implies \vdash \text{O}A⊢A⟹⊢OA

• If AAA is a tautology, then AAA is obligatory.

---

5. Variants and Extensions:

• Temporal Deontic Logic: Introduces time-sensitive obligations (e.g., “It is obligatory to do AAA by tomorrow”).
• Conditional Deontic Logic: Deals with obligations contingent on certain conditions (e.g., “If CCC, then it is obligatory to do AAA”).
• Paraconsistent Deontic Logic: Addresses potential conflicts between obligations.

Each extension adds new axioms or modifies existing ones to fit the desired context. Would you like to explore one of these systems in more detail?

4o

You said:

It seeems to be elluptical by using “it”

ChatGPT said:

You’re right to point out that the use of “it” in the sentence can seem elliptical or unclear without further context. In English, ellipsis refers to the omission of words that are understood from the context. When we say, “It is obligatory that AAA,” the word “it” is a dummy subject—meaning it doesn’t refer to anything specific but instead fills the syntactic role of the subject. The phrase would make more sense if expanded, such as:

• “It is obligatory that you complete the task.”
• “It is obligatory that all students attend the meeting.”

Here, “it” still serves as a syntactic placeholder, and the full meaning depends on the context or the underlying proposition being discussed.

In formal systems like deontic logic, such sentences often follow a convention where “it” can stand for a statement, obligation, or action in general. Would you like further clarification on how this applies to deontic logic or in another example?

You said:

An obigation or permission seems to require a source

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely correct that obligations and permissions typically require a source or authority that imposes or grants them. Without such a source, the concepts of obligation and permission can seem incomplete or ungrounded. Here’s how this idea plays out conceptually and in various contexts:

---

1. Philosophical and Logical Perspective

• In deontic logic, obligations (OA\text{O}AOA) and permissions (PA\text{P}APA) are usually treated abstractly, without explicit mention of a source. However, their practical interpretation often presupposes:
  • A moral authority (e.g., a system of ethics, societal norms).
  • A legal authority (e.g., laws, government).
  • A contractual agreement (e.g., obligations between individuals or groups).

Without specifying the source, the obligation or permission might lack normative force.

---

2. Authority or Source as a Context

• Moral Source: In ethical discussions, obligations might stem from universal principles (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative), cultural norms, or religious doctrines.
  • Example: “It is obligatory to tell the truth” assumes a moral or cultural framework.
• Legal Source: Permissions and obligations in legal contexts are explicitly tied to legal systems or rules.
  • Example: “It is obligatory to pay taxes” presupposes the authority of a government.
• Contractual Source: Agreements create obligations and permissions that derive their authority from mutual consent or enforcement mechanisms.
  • Example: “It is obligatory to deliver goods” arises from a contract.

---

3. Deontic Logic Extensions to Incorporate Sources

Some extensions of deontic logic attempt to make the source of obligations explicit:

• Agent-Relative Deontic Logic: Assigns obligations and permissions to specific agents (e.g., “Alice is obligated to do AAA by Bob”).
• Normative Systems Logic: Explicitly ties obligations and permissions to a source, such as an institution or set of rules.
  • Example: OLawA\text{O}_{\text{Law}} AOLaw​A: It is obligatory under the law to do AAA.

By incorporating the source into the logical framework, such extensions avoid ambiguity about where the normativity arises.

---

4. Practical Implications of the Source

The necessity of a source is evident in disputes over conflicting obligations or permissions:

• Moral Conflicts: Different moral systems may prescribe contradictory obligations (e.g., “Protect life” vs. “Follow orders”).
• Legal Disputes: Jurisdictional conflicts arise when multiple legal systems impose differing obligations (e.g., international law vs. local law).

Understanding the source helps resolve these conflicts or clarify the normative context.

---

Would you like to explore how specific systems of logic or philosophy address the role of sources in obligations and permissions?

4o

You said:

A distinction can be made between a prudential, a legal, and a moral source

ChatGPT said:

Yes, a meaningful distinction can indeed be drawn between prudential, legal, and moral sources of obligations and permissions. These distinctions are significant in both practical reasoning and philosophical analysis because they highlight the basis and justification for why an action is required, permitted, or forbidden. Here’s an overview:

---

1. Prudential Source

• Nature: Obligations or permissions grounded in self-interest or practical considerations. They are derived from what is beneficial or rational for an individual, given their goals or circumstances.
• Justification: Based on instrumental reasoning—actions are obligatory or permitted if they serve a desired end.
• Examples:
  • “It is obligatory to save money if you want to retire comfortably.”
  • “It is permissible to skip dessert if you aim to lose weight.”
• Philosophical Basis:
  • Found in theories of rational choice or utilitarian reasoning.
  • Prudential obligations are not inherently normative in a moral sense; they depend on the agent’s preferences and goals.

---

2. Legal Source

• Nature: Obligations or permissions imposed by a legal system or authority. They derive their force from the legitimacy and enforceability of the law.
• Justification: Grounded in social contract theory, legal positivism, or natural law theory, depending on the philosophical framework.
• Examples:
  • “It is obligatory to pay taxes under the law.”
  • “It is permissible to park in this zone with a valid permit.”
• Characteristics:
  • Typically enforceable through sanctions or penalties.
  • Legal obligations may or may not align with moral ones (e.g., unjust laws).

---

3. Moral Source

• Nature: Obligations or permissions arising from ethical principles, societal norms, or universal values. They appeal to a sense of right and wrong rather than self-interest or legality.
• Justification: Grounded in moral theories such as:
  • Deontology (e.g., Kantian ethics): Focused on duties and principles.
  • Consequentialism (e.g., Utilitarianism): Focused on outcomes and the greatest good.
  • Virtue Ethics: Focused on character and virtues.
• Examples:
  • “It is morally obligatory to help someone in need.”
  • “It is morally permissible to defend oneself in self-defense.”
• Characteristics:
  • Morality often appeals to universal principles and can critique both prudential and legal obligations (e.g., civil disobedience against unjust laws).

---

Key Differences

Aspect	Prudential	Legal	Moral
Source	Self-interest or practical reasoning.	Laws or legal authority.	Ethical principles or societal norms.
Scope	Context-specific and goal-oriented.	Jurisdictional (e.g., state laws).	Potentially universal or situational.
Enforcement	By personal consequences (e.g., failure).	By external authorities (e.g., courts).	By conscience, social pressure, or moral reasoning.
Conflicts	Between individual goals.	Between jurisdictions or legal systems.	Between ethical systems or principles.

---

Interrelations and Conflicts

• Prudential vs. Moral: A prudential action might conflict with a moral duty.
  • Example: “Skipping charity to save money” might be prudential but not moral.
• Legal vs. Moral: A legal obligation may contradict a moral one.
  • Example: Civil disobedience against laws permitting discrimination.
• Prudential vs. Legal: A legal obligation might not align with self-interest.
  • Example: Paying taxes may conflict with an individual’s financial goals.

---

Philosophical Implications

The distinction highlights the multi-faceted nature of normative systems and raises questions such as:

• What should one prioritize in cases of conflict (e.g., morality vs. law)?
• Can a legal system be legitimate if it consistently opposes moral principles?
• Is prudence ever a sufficient basis for normative obligations?

Would you like to explore these implications further or analyze specific cases where these sources conflict?

4o

You said:

Is consequentualism in morals a type of prudential consideration

ChatGPT said:

Consequentialism in morals is not strictly a type of prudential consideration, though they share some similarities. While both focus on outcomes or consequences, their scope, justification, and underlying principles differ significantly. Let’s break this down:

---

Key Differences Between Consequentialism and Prudential Considerations

Aspect	Consequentialism	Prudential Consideration
Scope	Concerned with the overall consequences for everyone.	Concerned with the outcomes for a specific individual.
Moral Justification	Based on universal or collective moral principles (e.g., the greatest good for the greatest number).	Based on self-interest or instrumental reasoning.
Impartiality	Requires impartial evaluation of outcomes for all affected.	Typically agent-relative, focusing on what benefits the decision-maker.
Example	“Lying is justified if it prevents harm to many people.”	“Lying is justified if it helps me avoid trouble.”

---

Overlap Between Consequentialism and Prudential Considerations

1. Focus on Outcomes:
   • Both emphasize the importance of consequences, rather than duties or inherent virtues.
   • However, consequentialism applies this reasoning universally, whereas prudence applies it personally or locally.
2. Instrumental Reasoning:
   • Prudential considerations involve instrumental reasoning: “If I want to achieve X, I should do Y.”
   • Consequentialism also evaluates the means to an end, but the end goal is moral, not personal.

---

Where the Lines Blur

Consequentialist moral theories sometimes align with prudential reasoning when:

• The agent’s personal well-being is part of the greater good.
• The consequences that matter include the agent’s self-interest.

For example, in utilitarianism (a type of consequentialism), your personal happiness might contribute to the overall utility. However, if maximizing the good requires sacrificing your happiness, consequentialism demands that sacrifice, whereas prudential considerations would resist it.

---

Philosophical Debate

1. Consequentialism as a Broader Framework:
   • Consequentialism can be seen as encompassing prudential considerations when the “good” being maximized includes personal well-being.
   • However, pure prudential reasoning lacks the moral impartiality and universal scope of consequentialism.
2. Critiques:
   • Deontologists and virtue ethicists argue that reducing morality to consequences risks conflating moral duties with mere expedience or self-interest.

---

Conclusion

Consequentialism is broader than prudential consideration because it evaluates actions based on their outcomes for everyone, guided by moral principles. Prudential considerations, by contrast, are self-centered and lack the moral universality that consequentialism demands. While they can intersect, particularly in contexts where personal and collective interests align, they are distinct frameworks of reasoning. Would you like to explore specific scenarios or moral theories further?

4o

You said:

What of we view prudence as social prudence?

ChatGPT said:

Viewing morality as a form of social prudence offers an intriguing framework that bridges individual and collective reasoning. This perspective treats moral behavior as a strategy for ensuring social harmony, cooperation, and long-term benefits within a group—essentially extending the concept of prudence (self-interest or practical reasoning) to the social domain.

Here’s how this perspective can be understood and its implications analyzed:

---

1. Social Prudence as the Basis for Morality

• Definition: Social prudence involves acting in ways that promote the well-being, trust, and stability of a social group, recognizing that the individual benefits indirectly through the health of the group.
• Premise: Moral behavior emerges as an extension of self-interest in a social context. It is “prudent” for individuals to follow moral norms because doing so sustains the structures and relationships that benefit them.

---

2. Connection Between Social Prudence and Moral Theories

a. Consequentialism:

• Social prudence aligns closely with consequentialist reasoning: actions are moral if they lead to the greatest good for the group.
• Example: “It’s socially prudent to keep promises because breaking them erodes trust and harms collective well-being.”

b. Contractarianism:

• Social prudence is central to contractarian theories (e.g., Hobbes, Gauthier). Morality is understood as a social contract: individuals agree to certain norms for mutual benefit.
• Example: “Obeying the law is prudent because it ensures social order, which benefits everyone.”

c. Virtue Ethics:

• Social prudence can underpin virtues like honesty, generosity, or justice. These traits are valuable because they facilitate cooperation and social flourishing.
• Example: “Being generous strengthens social bonds, which ultimately benefits the giver.”

---

3. Advantages of Viewing Morality as Social Prudence

• Practical Justification: Grounds morality in tangible benefits (e.g., trust, cooperation, reduced conflict), making it accessible and relatable.
• Evolutionary Perspective: Aligns with theories of social evolution, where moral norms evolve because they enhance group survival and success.
• Conflict Resolution: Encourages individuals to weigh personal interests against group well-being, fostering compromises.

---

4. Challenges and Critiques

a. Risk of Reductionism:

• Reduces morality to self-interest, potentially undermining its normative force.
• Critics might argue that this approach neglects cases where moral action demands self-sacrifice with no clear social benefit.

b. Limits of Reciprocity:

• Social prudence works well in cooperative contexts but struggles to justify moral obligations toward those outside the group (e.g., distant strangers, future generations).

c. Inherent Moral Value:

• Many moral philosophers argue that morality involves intrinsic duties or principles (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative) that cannot be reduced to prudential reasoning.

---

5. Implications for Social Behavior

Viewing morality as social prudence emphasizes the role of norms and mutual accountability:

• Trust and Cooperation: Social prudence explains why trust and fairness are cornerstones of morality—they make societies function effectively.
• Long-Term Benefits: Encourages behaviors like sustainability or education, which benefit society as a whole, even if they require individual sacrifices.

---

Conclusion

Viewing morality as social prudence provides a compelling lens to understand moral behavior as an adaptive, practical strategy for maintaining social cohesion and mutual benefit. However, it may not fully capture the depth of moral obligations, especially those that extend beyond immediate social groups or involve selfless sacrifice.

Would you like to explore this framework in relation to specific moral dilemmas or its philosophical implications?

4o

You said:

What if we view morality as based on agreements?

ChatGPT said:

Viewing morality as based on agreements provides a framework rooted in mutual consent, cooperation, and shared understanding among individuals or groups. This perspective aligns with contractarianism and social contract theories, which see morality as emerging from the agreements people make to live harmoniously and achieve common goals.

Here’s an exploration of this view:

---

1. Morality as Agreements: The Core Idea

• Definition: Morality is not intrinsic or imposed by an external authority (e.g., divine or natural law) but arises from explicit or implicit agreements among rational agents.
• Rationale: Humans create moral norms to resolve conflicts, facilitate cooperation, and enhance collective well-being. These norms represent a kind of “social contract.”

---

2. Historical and Philosophical Roots

a. Classical Social Contract Theory:

• Hobbes: In a state of nature, life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” Agreements (or contracts) establish morality to ensure security and prevent chaos.
• Locke: Morality based on agreements protects natural rights like life, liberty, and property.
• Rousseau: Social contracts ensure freedom through collective self-governance.

b. Modern Contractarianism:

• Rawls: Morality arises from agreements reached under a “veil of ignorance,” ensuring fairness and equality.
• Gauthier: Moral norms are rational agreements that maximize individual and collective benefit.

---

3. Features of Morality Based on Agreements

a. Voluntariness:

• Moral rules are binding because they are agreed upon, not because they are imposed externally.

b. Reciprocity:

• Agreements reflect mutual benefit; morality is a system of give-and-take.
• Example: “I won’t harm you if you won’t harm me.”

c. Context-Dependence:

• Morality varies with the agreements made within a specific society or group. Different cultures or communities may establish different norms.

d. Flexibility:

• Agreements can evolve or be renegotiated as circumstances change.

---

4. Advantages of Morality as Agreements

a. Practical Justification:

• Provides a clear rationale for moral norms: they arise to solve real-world problems and facilitate coexistence.
• Example: Traffic laws as moral agreements for safety.

b. Equality and Mutual Respect:

• Agreements presume equality among the parties involved and recognize their autonomy.
• Example: Social contracts emphasize consent and fairness.

c. Conflict Resolution:

• Morality as agreements helps mediate disputes by appealing to shared rules or principles.

d. Empirical Basis:

• Aligns with observations of human and animal behavior, where cooperation and agreements evolve naturally (e.g., reciprocal altruism).

---

5. Challenges and Critiques

a. Moral Scope:

• Challenge: What about obligations to those who cannot participate in agreements (e.g., infants, animals, future generations)?
• Response: Some extend the concept of agreements to include implied consent or surrogate agreements on behalf of these groups.

b. Power Imbalances:

• Challenge: Agreements may be coercive or exploitative if one party has more power.
• Response: The legitimacy of agreements depends on conditions of fairness and equality.

c. Moral Disagreement:

• Challenge: If morality is based on agreements, what happens when people fundamentally disagree on key principles?
• Response: Moral pluralism may allow for multiple, overlapping agreements within diverse societies.

d. Intrinsic Value:

• Challenge: Some argue that morality should be based on intrinsic principles (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative) rather than contingent agreements.
• Response: Agreement-based morality can incorporate intrinsic principles by reflecting them in shared norms.

---

6. Implications for Moral Philosophy

• Negotiation: Encourages dialogue and compromise in moral disputes.
• Cultural Relativism: Suggests that morality may vary across cultures based on differing agreements, though some universal principles may emerge.
• Dynamic Morality: Reflects the evolving nature of social values and norms as agreements change over time.

---

7. Examples in Practice

a. Social Contracts in Politics:

• Constitutions and legal systems represent collective agreements about justice, rights, and governance.

b. Ethical Codes in Organizations:

• Workplace ethics often emerge from agreed-upon rules for fair treatment and mutual benefit.

c. Environmental Agreements:

• Global environmental ethics can be seen as agreements to protect shared resources for mutual survival.

---

Conclusion

Viewing morality as based on agreements offers a flexible, rational framework that highlights the role of cooperation and consent in moral systems. While it faces challenges in accounting for non-participants and power dynamics, it provides a compelling way to understand morality as a human construct tailored to social needs.

Would you like to explore how this view compares to other moral theories, or delve into specific examples of agreement-based morality?

2/2

4o

You said:

Morals by agreement gives a clears answer to death in sports.

ChatGPT said:

The concept of morals by agreement does provide a structured way to address complex ethical dilemmas, such as the acceptability of death in sports. This perspective evaluates whether the norms, practices, and risks involved in a sport are ethically justified based on the agreements made by participants, spectators, and society.

Here’s how this framework can clarify the issue:

---

1. The Ethical Framework: Agreements in Sports

a. Explicit Agreements:

• These are the formal rules, contracts, and consent forms that participants sign before engaging in the sport.
• Example: Boxers or MMA fighters explicitly agree to the risks of injury, including potentially fatal consequences.

b. Implicit Agreements:

• These are the unwritten social understandings about what is acceptable in a given sport.
• Example: Society implicitly agrees that some sports (e.g., motorsports, extreme climbing) involve risks but are justified by values like skill, entertainment, or personal freedom.

c. Informed Consent:

• For an agreement to be ethical, all parties must fully understand and accept the risks involved. This includes athletes, officials, and even spectators who indirectly endorse these practices.

---

2. Morals by Agreement Applied to Death in Sports

a. Participant Consent:

• If athletes knowingly and voluntarily agree to participate in a sport with life-threatening risks, this aligns with the principle of mutual consent.
• Caveat: Consent is only valid if athletes are fully informed about the risks and are not coerced (e.g., financial desperation).

b. Societal Agreement:

• Society must agree that the risks in a sport are acceptable given its cultural, entertainment, or other benefits.
• Example: Auto racing often involves deadly accidents, but society generally accepts it because of its historical and cultural significance.

c. Limits of Agreement:

• Some agreements may be deemed unethical if they normalize preventable harm or disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals.
• Example: Gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome involved explicit agreements, but it is now widely condemned as unethical.

---

3. How Morals by Agreement Clarifies Key Issues

a. Acceptable Risk:

• Morals by agreement allow society to determine what level of risk is reasonable in sports.
• Example: Protective gear in football or headgear in boxing reflects societal efforts to reduce, though not eliminate, fatal risks.

b. Responsibility for Death:

• If death occurs within agreed-upon boundaries, it may be ethically acceptable, as all parties have consented to the conditions.
• Example: A fatal accident in skydiving, where risks are explicitly acknowledged, might be viewed differently than in a poorly regulated sport.

c. Regulation and Safety:

• Ethical agreements demand constant evaluation of safety standards to minimize unnecessary risks.
• Example: Rule changes in American football to reduce concussions reflect an evolving societal agreement on safety.

---

4. Controversial Cases

a. High-Risk Extreme Sports:

• In sports like BASE jumping or free solo climbing, the risk of death is high, but participants typically act out of personal autonomy.
• Agreements here are often purely individual rather than societal, raising questions about whether society has a moral duty to intervene.

b. Combat Sports:

• Boxing and MMA explicitly accept the risk of severe injury and death. If participants and audiences agree on the rules and risks, the practice may be justified under this framework.
• Critics argue that societal agreements should prioritize health over entertainment, pushing for stricter regulations.

c. Child Athletes:

• Agreements involving minors are ethically problematic, as children may lack the capacity for fully informed consent.
• Example: High-risk sports for youth might breach moral agreements if the participants cannot adequately understand or consent to the risks.

---

5. Practical Implications

a. Continuous Reevaluation:

• Agreements should evolve with new evidence about risks, societal values, and technological advances.
• Example: The NFL’s ongoing reforms in response to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) reflect this principle.

b. Balancing Autonomy and Paternalism:

• Morals by agreement must balance individual freedom to take risks with societal responsibility to prevent avoidable harm.

c. Transparency:

• Clear, accessible information about risks is essential for ethical agreements in sports.

---

6. Conclusion

Under the morals by agreement framework, the ethical acceptability of death in sports hinges on:

1. Informed, voluntary consent by participants.
2. Societal endorsement of the sport’s value and risks.
3. Efforts to minimize unnecessary harm through regulations and evolving standards.

This approach allows for clarity while respecting both individual autonomy and collective responsibility. It recognizes that, in some cases, society may deem certain sports ethically acceptable despite the inherent risk of death, provided the agreements involved are fair, informed, and continuously reassessed.

Would you like to explore specific sports or historical examples where this reasoning applies?

4o

You said:

It also applies to duels

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the morals by agreement framework can indeed be applied to duels, as they involve explicit agreements between individuals to engage in a high-risk activity, often with potentially fatal outcomes. By examining dueling through this lens, we can explore its historical context, ethical implications, and modern parallels.

---

1. Dueling: A Historical Agreement

a. Nature of the Agreement:

• Dueling historically involved explicit agreements between participants to resolve disputes or defend honor through combat.
• The agreement typically included:
  • Mutual consent of the participants.
  • Rules governing the duel (e.g., choice of weapons, conditions of victory, presence of seconds).

b. Social Context:

• Dueling was often viewed as a socially acceptable way to resolve conflicts, reflecting a collective agreement that personal honor was worth risking one’s life.
• Example: In 18th-century Europe, duels among aristocrats upheld codes of honor that were deeply embedded in societal norms.

---

2. Morals by Agreement Applied to Dueling

a. Explicit Agreements:

• Participants in a duel explicitly agreed to the rules and risks involved, making the practice ethically permissible under certain conditions.
• Key Question: Were both parties fully informed and free from coercion?

b. Societal Agreement:

• The wider community often endorsed dueling as a legitimate way to address grievances, reflecting shared values about honor and justice.
• However, societal views on dueling evolved, with growing criticism of its risks and arbitrariness leading to its decline.

c. Limits of Agreement:

• Agreements to duel may be ethically flawed if:
  • One party is coerced or pressured into participating.
  • The practice disproportionately harms vulnerable individuals or groups.
  • The societal agreement supporting dueling becomes outdated or unjustifiable.

---

3. Ethical Implications

a. Autonomy and Consent:

• If both participants willingly agree to a duel, it can be seen as an exercise of autonomy.
• However, social pressure to defend one’s honor might undermine genuine consent, particularly in hierarchical societies.

b. Value of Life vs. Honor:

• The ethical tension arises from prioritizing abstract values like honor over the intrinsic value of life.
• Modern moral frameworks often reject dueling because they prioritize life and health over honor.

c. Public Safety:

• Dueling poses risks not only to participants but also to bystanders or public order.
• Societal agreements that endorse dueling may be challenged for failing to consider the broader consequences.

---

4. Modern Parallels to Dueling

a. Competitive Sports:

• High-risk sports like boxing or MMA resemble dueling in their structured, consensual nature and societal endorsement.
• Difference: Sports aim to test skill, not resolve disputes.

b. Legal Combat (e.g., “Trial by Combat”):

• Historical dueling shares similarities with earlier practices like trial by combat, where disputes were resolved through sanctioned combat.
• Modern society largely rejects such practices as incompatible with contemporary legal and moral standards.

c. Informal Duels:

• Street fights or revenge killings may mimic the dynamics of duels but lack the formal agreements and societal endorsement, making them ethically problematic.

---

5. Changing Societal Agreements

The decline of dueling reflects an evolving societal agreement about acceptable ways to resolve conflicts:

• Rule of Law: Modern societies prioritize legal systems over personal combat for resolving disputes.
• Value of Life: There is a stronger emphasis on the sanctity of life, making practices like dueling morally and legally unacceptable.
• Public Order: The recognition that dueling undermines public safety and encourages a culture of violence.

---

6. Conclusion

Using the morals by agreement framework, dueling can be understood as an ethical practice under historical conditions where explicit agreements and societal norms supported it. However, shifting values and evolving societal agreements have largely rendered dueling unethical and obsolete in modern contexts.

This analysis highlights how the framework accommodates changing norms and demonstrates its relevance for understanding the morality of both historical and contemporary practices. Would you like to explore specific historical cases of dueling or compare them to modern high-risk consensual activities?

4o

You said:

I think we should restrict morality by ageement to voluntary agreements

ChatGPT said:

Restricting morality by agreement to voluntary agreements offers a clearer and more ethically sound framework. This approach focuses on ensuring that all parties involved in an agreement have freely chosen to participate, without coercion, manipulation, or undue influence. By grounding morality in voluntary agreements, we can protect individual autonomy while still allowing for collective norms to emerge in a just and ethical manner.

Key Elements of Voluntary Agreements in Morality

1. Informed Consent:
   • Parties must fully understand the nature, risks, and consequences of the agreement.
   • Example: Informed consent in medical procedures, where individuals freely choose to undergo treatment after being provided with all relevant information.
2. Free Will:
   • Agreements must be made without coercion. Everyone involved should have the option to decline participation.
   • Example: A person choosing to participate in a sport where there are clear risks (e.g., boxing) must do so voluntarily.
3. Mutual Benefit:
   • The agreement should ideally provide a fair exchange or mutual benefit for all parties involved.
   • Example: A contract between two parties that ensures both sides benefit from the arrangement (e.g., employment contracts).

---

Why Voluntary Agreements Are Ethically Superior

1. Respect for Autonomy:
   • Voluntary agreements respect the autonomy of individuals by acknowledging their capacity to make decisions for themselves. This aligns with moral principles that prioritize individual liberty and self-determination.
   • Example: Consent for sexual activities must always be voluntary, respecting personal autonomy.
2. Fairness and Equality:
   • When agreements are voluntary, they ensure that no party is being taken advantage of or unfairly pressured into participating. This protects individuals from exploitation and helps maintain a just society.
   • Example: Labor agreements, where employees are free to accept or reject employment offers based on the terms.
3. Ethical Legitimacy:
   • Only voluntary agreements can claim ethical legitimacy because they are based on mutual consent. A non-voluntary agreement (e.g., forced labor, dueling under duress) lacks moral legitimacy.
   • Example: The historical practice of slavery is morally unacceptable because it involved non-consensual agreements, often under threat of violence.
4. Prevents Coercion and Exploitation:
   • Voluntary agreements prevent moral issues that arise from coercion, such as when one party imposes unfair terms or exerts undue pressure.
   • Example: Debt bondage or human trafficking are moral wrongs precisely because they are based on forced, non-voluntary agreements.

---

Applying Voluntary Agreement to Morality in Practice

1. Sports and High-Risk Activities:
   • High-risk sports or activities like boxing or skydiving rely on voluntary agreements, where participants know the risks and freely choose to engage. This makes these activities ethically acceptable (under the right conditions of informed consent and safety).
   • Limitation: If participants are coerced or lack full information, the moral legitimacy of the agreement is undermined.
2. Social Contracts:
   • The social contract theory (e.g., Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) can be seen as a form of collective moral agreement where society’s norms are based on voluntary consent to abide by rules that protect everyone’s interests.
   • Limitation: Modern societies often critique the idea of an implicit social contract because not all individuals have equal power in forming or accepting these societal agreements (e.g., marginalized groups may not have real choices in participating).
3. Workplace Ethics:
   • Ethical workplace practices are grounded in voluntary agreements, such as employment contracts where both employer and employee agree to certain terms, including pay, benefits, and working conditions.
   • Limitation: If an employee is coerced or misinformed about the terms of the agreement, the moral legitimacy of the agreement can be questioned.

---

Ethical Considerations and Limitations

While voluntary agreements are central to an ethical understanding of morality, there are complexities to consider:

1. Paternalism:
   • There may be cases where individuals cannot make fully informed choices due to lack of knowledge, cognitive limitations, or external pressures (e.g., addiction or financial desperation). In such cases, paternalistic interventions may be justified to protect their well-being.
   • Example: Governments regulating certain harmful activities (e.g., restricting access to dangerous drugs) based on the idea that people may not always make the best decisions for themselves.
2. Power Imbalances:
   • Even in cases of formal voluntariness, power imbalances may render an agreement non-voluntary in practice. For instance, if a worker has no choice but to accept poor working conditions due to economic necessity, their consent may not be fully free.
   • Example: Exploitation in sweatshops where workers may appear to agree to the terms, but their consent is constrained by their circumstances.
3. Collective Agreements and Social Norms:
   • Some argue that society’s moral norms cannot always be purely voluntary, as they shape behavior through laws and social expectations. While these norms may not always be based on voluntary agreements, they can still be ethically justified if they promote fairness and justice for all members of society.

---

Conclusion

Restricting morality by agreement to voluntary agreements strengthens its ethical foundation by ensuring respect for autonomy, fairness, and consent. This framework provides clear guidelines for what constitutes ethical behavior, especially in contexts like sports, contracts, and social norms. However, it requires vigilance against coercion, exploitation, and power imbalances that can undermine true voluntariness.

Would you like to explore specific examples or discuss how this framework can be applied in other contexts (e.g., law, politics, or family ethics)?

I asked chat GPT to reformulate as an argument and test its soundness the followong passage from my dissertation on Wilfrid Sellars:

D. APING REASON

But the inclusion or exclusion of auxiliary positions or rules of inference in L locates the difference but does not express it. The difference is more fundamental. The essential demarcation between RS and L lies, as has been noted, in the availability of logical and modal words in L, and their unavailability in RS. The obvious objection to this — an objection which I have entertained for a long time, and which I thought was the Achilles’ heel of Sellars’ philosophy — was to think that animal behavior displays an analogy to logical inference. And therefore, I thought, the difference between L and RS is drawn at the wrong place. But is it drawn at the wrong place? Sellars is quite aware of behavior in animals which resembles logical inference — it is what has already been referred to by Sellars as ‘Humean inference’, and which B. Russell described as ‘animal inference’.{77} Sellars also notes that Leibniz spoke of this as a “consecutiveness which imitates reason.”{78} An example of a Humean inference, it will be recalled, was: ‘Smoke here’, ‘fire nearby’. And it resembles the Aristotelian inference: ‘Smoke here,’ ‘If smoke anywhere, then fire nearby’, ‘fire nearby’. The resemblance lies in the transition from similar initial states to similar end states, i.e., from an analogous observations of ‘Smoke here’ to analogous mental states of ‘Fire nearby’. The objection may be pushed further. It can be conceded that the difference between RS and L is in the availability of the auxiliary positions. But this is an accidental distinction. For, after all, Sellars himself had admitted that such positions are dispensable. Their role can be taken over by the rules of inference. Are we to attribute an awareness of rules to animals? How would that be possible? Rules are, after all, formulated in a language. And if an animal has rules, they must be contained in a meta-RS. Yes, the objector may continue, Sellars has conceded that animals may be said to have meta-representations. So why can’t we attribute to them rules expressed in a meta-representation? To answer this objection, we have to start by pointing out that Sellars distinguishes between rule-conforming (or rule-patterned) and rule-following (or rule-regulated) behavior. The difference between them is that rule conforming behavior does not involve the formulation of a rule as an element in conscious thought, while rule following behavior does. For example, a rat, after being trained to run a maze, has a representation of the maze in the sense that given the proper context, being in one position of the maze will trigger off a series of appropriate responses. Now contrast this with a human car driver who consults a map to guide him in his journey. The ‘map’ in the rat’s case is not something consulted; whereas in the driver’s case it is. To keep to the metaphor, the rat acts non-consciously in conformity to the path on the map; the driver acts by consciously following the path on the map. Inference rules are, then, rules which are available for consultation. While no rules are available for consultation to an RS organism. The reason is this. A rule is, as Sellars points out, always a rule of action of the form: ‘If you want to bring about the result R, then if the circumstances are C, then you must (ought, may, may not, cannot, etc.) do action A’.{79} It is because an RS organism cannot infer through the process of obeying a rule that it cannot be said to ‘infer’ in the primary sense of ‘inference’, which is ‘Aristotelian inference’. As Sellars puts it, “an intra-linguistic move is not in the full sense an inference unless the subject not only conforms to but obeys syntactic rules.”{80} Why is a rule (or its analogue) not available to an animal? Sellars’ answer is straightforward. An animal does not have the required logical vocabulary that is explicitly expressed by the rule formula, nor the logical connections (meanings) that are implied by the use of the rule formula. Suppose the objector responds by claiming that logical connector analogues are available to an RS organism. For example, a rat can be trained to respond to, let’s say, a pink cube. And it refuses to respond to other colors and volumes. Isn’t this refusal to respond an analogue of negation? Sellars asks this question explicitly: “How can a pre-logical RS ape the use of negation?”{81} His answer is that indeed a Humean RS organism has the resources of accepting or rejecting a proposition, but notes that we, as Aristotelian RSs, not only have the resources of accepting or rejecting a proposition, but we also have the resources of affirming or negating a proposition as well. And (our) concept of negation is not equivalent to (our) concept of rejection. The latter concept, he tells us, is more basic. Negation entails rejection, but not vice versa.{82} Sellars argues that from our perspective, if an RS organism rejects p, this entails (for us) that it does not represent p. But from our perspective, these are equivalent for it. Now our notion of not representing p includes representing not-p. And (for us) representing not-p entails rejecting p (which is equivalent for the RS to not representing p). But not representing p does not entail the representing of not-p. Therefore, argues Sellars, “The concept of rejection is more basic than the concept of negation.”{83} This is to say that our concept of negation is a richer concept than that of rejection. This conclusion seems to be correct for yet another reason. Consider the fact that we can make a distinction between the negation of a sentence and the negation of the predicate of a sentence, i.e., ‘It is not the case that p’ and ‘This a in not F’. The latter entails the former, but the former does not entail the latter. A Humean RS would fail to make the distinction by representing both cases through the rejection of the propositions. If it is granted to Sellars that negation is not available to an RS organism, then it also follows that none of the other truth-functional logical constants are available to an RS organism as well. This follows from the fact that truth-functions require one primitive logical constant with negation, and all other logical constants are interdefinable with the inclusion of the negation operator. We can make even a broader generalization by saying that no conceptual propositions at all are available to an RS organism since their meanings are dependent on their logical connections with other propositions. And as a corollary, no proposition which entails a truth-functional proposition is available to an RS organism. Now normally a truth-functional logic or a truncated form (which includes negation) is part of most other logics, such as modal and intuitive logics. If that is the case, then none of these dependent logics are available to an RS organism either. A specific case concerns Sellars’ material rules of inference which are correlative to ‘causal laws’. He writes, “For a lucid presentation of the fundamentals of a logic of causal modalities, see Burks . . . “{84} In Arthur Burks we are given the following axiom: “a causal implication [materially] implies a material implication.”{85} The significance of this is that an RS organism, by this reasoning, lacks the concept of a causal law because it lacks the correlative material rule of inference. There is one last point which must be cleared up. All that has been said so far seems to be compatible with the view that human beings, in possessing a language, are able to perceive negative facts. This is not Sellars’ view. All logical operators, as well as various modal and semantical words, are ultimately to be located in the metalanguage. Their role is to enable us to move from propositions to propositions. At the object level there are only positive sentences which picture reality. Thus, a form such as ‘not-p’ is to be understood as the denial of the truth of p.{86} With these observations in place, I can make the following conclusions on the difference between RS and L (using organisms). Although both use the entry to RS, intra-RS, and RS departure transitions, and although both use rs-propositions, and both have meta-representations; because primitive RSs lack a logical vocabulary, RS organisms can, at best, conform to inference rules. This has the appearance of aping reason. But only an L has a logical vocabulary which enables an L organism to follow rules — both formal and material. And here is a crucial point for Sellars. To have words in one’s vocabulary that are essential in formal and material inferences is to have concepts: the conceptual meaning of a descriptive term is constituted by what can be inferred from it in accordance with the logical and extra-logical rules of inference of the language (conceptual frame) to which it belongs.{87} But if we expand on this by including such auxiliary positions as expressions of value and obligation, then the broader formulation becomes: “to express a concept is to be relevant to inferences which can be drawn from statements in which the expression occurs.”{88}

ChatGPT said:

Reformulation of the Argument:

1. Premise 1: The difference between RS (representational systems without logical vocabulary) and L (linguistic systems with logical vocabulary) lies in the availability of logical and modal vocabulary in L and their unavailability in RS.
2. Premise 2: Animal behavior, though seemingly analogous to logical inference (e.g., “Humean inferences”), does not constitute genuine inference because animals conform to rules rather than follow them. Rule-following requires the consultation of a logical vocabulary, which animals lack.
3. Premise 3: Inference rules involve explicit logical vocabulary and entail awareness of rules as entities that can be consulted. RS organisms lack this capacity, operating instead by behavioral conformity.
4. Premise 4: Logical constants (e.g., negation, conjunction) require linguistic representation, which RS organisms lack. Therefore, RS organisms cannot possess concepts dependent on logical connections or propositional structures.
5. Premise 5: Human language, as part of L, provides a framework for not only representing but also negating and affirming propositions. This is richer than mere acceptance or rejection seen in RS organisms.
6. Conclusion: RS organisms may appear to “ape” reason by conforming to patterns analogous to rule-governed behavior, but they cannot engage in genuine Aristotelian inference. Only L organisms, with access to a logical vocabulary, engage in true conceptual thinking and rule-following.

---

Testing for Soundness:

1. Validity (Logical Structure):
   • The argument is logically valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows that RS organisms cannot engage in true inference, while L organisms can.
2. Truth of Premises:
   • Premise 1: Sellars’ distinction between RS and L is well-supported in the text and hinges on the role of logical vocabulary. This premise is plausible within Sellars’ framework.
   • Premise 2: The claim that animal behavior exhibits “Humean inference” but not genuine Aristotelian inference is grounded in Sellars’ distinction between rule-conforming and rule-following behavior. This distinction is theoretically sound and widely accepted in philosophical discussions of cognition.
   • Premise 3: The necessity of a logical vocabulary for rule-following behavior is a strong claim and aligns with Sellars’ philosophy of language. However, one might challenge whether meta-representational capacities in animals could serve as a primitive form of “rule awareness.”
   • Premise 4: Logical constants requiring linguistic representation is defensible but contingent on the acceptance of Sellars’ framework. Some cognitive scientists argue that non-linguistic organisms might possess proto-logical operations.
   • Premise 5: The distinction between negation and rejection is coherent within the logical structure of L, but empirical challenges could arise concerning the continuity between human and animal cognition.
3. Empirical Support:
   • The argument assumes clear distinctions between human and animal cognition. While plausible, this view is debated, especially in fields like comparative cognition and animal behavior.

---

Soundness Assessment:

The argument is valid and sound within Sellars’ framework. However, its broader soundness depends on whether one accepts Sellars’ assumptions about the necessary role of language in logical reasoning and inference. Empirical challenges might arise regarding whether animals possess meta-representational capacities or proto-logical structures. If these challenges are substantial, the argument’s second and fourth premises may require refinement.

I asked chatGPT to put in a table the following from my dissertation on Wilfrid Sellars:

The term ‘foundations’ is a metaphor suggesting the foundations of some structure, usually a house; sometimes a pyramid. To have a contrasting metaphor for ‘coherentism’ the images of circles and rafts have been used. Here are Sellars’ images: One seems forced to choose between the picture of an elephant which rests on a tortoise (what supports the tortoise?) and the picture of a great Hegelian serpent of knowledge with its tail in its mouth (where does it begin?). Neither will do.{19} The foundations of the pyramid (or tortoise) is the metaphor for the justification of basic premises. How this justification is to be described varies in classical foundationalism. The proposed marks or criteria of basic premises have been certainty, incorrigibility, infallibility, indubitability, and/or self-warrantability. By contrast the image of the raft (or serpent) will mean the requirements of consistency and coherence. How ‘coherence’ is to be understood has, like the notion of foundational security, several interpretation. For example, in C. I. Lewis we find the term ‘congruence’ and in R. Chisholm the term ‘concurrence’ used for this purpose; while in Sellars we come across the notion of ‘explanatory coherence’. The notion of coherence and these related notions are meant, I suspect, to express the requirement of systematic logical, temporal, spatial, and causal relations. But are foundationalism and coherentism contradictory alternatives? Since the defense of coherentism has been by way of an attack on foundationalism, i.e., a defense of non-foundationalism, in order to understand the foundationalist/non-foundationalist debate we need some minimal thesis which is in dispute. Let me, then, try to formulate it. If we view the situation abstractly and metaphorically, the foundationalism versus non-foundationalism debate could contain the following claims:

(EC) The raft exists; there is no pyramid.

(EF) The pyramid exists; there is no raft.

(M) The pyramid and the raft both exist.

(MC) The raft is a necessary condition for the pyramid, but the pyramid is not the necessary condition for the raft.

(MF) The pyramid is the necessary condition for the raft, but the raft is not a necessary condition for the pyramid.

(W) The pyramid and the raft entail each other. I will call (EC) Extreme Coherentism and

(EF) Extreme Foundationalism — no one holds such a view;

(MC) is Moderate Coherentism, while

(MF) is Moderate Foundationalism;

(W) can be viewed either as Weak Coherentism or as Weak Foundationalism.

To decide which of these alternatives is defended by so called foundationalists and non-foundationalists, let us look at the writing of a self-proclaimed foundationalist — Roderick Chisholm; and the writings of the self-conscious non-foundationalist — Laurence Bonjour. I am not sure where to place others, including Sellars. And since I am writing about Sellars, I will shortly explain why there is a difficulty in placing Sellars at either end of these poles. Let me first turn to Chisholm. He defends a version of foundationalism which has a foundationalist and a coherentist aspect. He writes: “There are two moments of epistemic justification, one of them foundational and the other not.”{20} As Chisholm sees the epistemic situation, both sets of metaphors will do: they express two aspects of knowledge. Now, this is a significant thesis. It indicates that foundationalism does not deny coherence as a necessary condition for securing knowledge. And if this is the pronouncement of a foundationalist, which seems to fit the alternative (W) of Weak Foundationalism, then a non-foundationalist, who opposes Chisholm, must be defending either (EC) or (MC). I am not going to pursue the structural problem of how various types of beliefs are tied together as, for example, in various modes of induction or coherence; so I am not interested is dealing with the superstructure of the foundational-coherentist issue, save for one respect. I want to defend a necessary condition for foundationalism.

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a table summarizing the key points related to Sellars’ metaphorical images, the foundationalism vs. coherentism debate, and the claims about these perspectives:

Concept	Description
Foundationalism	A view suggesting that certain beliefs or premises are justified without reference to other beliefs, often represented metaphorically by a “pyramid” or “tortoise.” Basic premises are justified through criteria like certainty, incorrigibility, or self-warrantability.
Coherentism	A view suggesting that the justification for beliefs arises from their coherence with other beliefs, often represented metaphorically by a “raft” or a “serpent.” The requirements for coherence include consistency, logical relations, and causal or temporal relations.
Metaphor of Foundations	Refers to the image of a “pyramid” or “tortoise” where the foundation justifies the structure above it. This is typically associated with classical foundationalism, where basic premises are justified by foundational criteria.
Metaphor of Coherence	Refers to the image of a “raft” or “serpent,” suggesting that knowledge is justified by its coherence with other beliefs or parts of a system. Coherence is understood through concepts like “explanatory coherence” or “congruence.”
Foundationalist Criteria for Justification	Certainty, incorrigibility, infallibility, indubitability, and/or self-warrantability are some of the proposed criteria for justifying basic premises in classical foundationalism.
Coherence and Related Terms	Coherence can be understood through different interpretations, such as “congruence” (C. I. Lewis), “concurrence” (R. Chisholm), or “explanatory coherence” (Sellars). These terms reflect the need for systematic logical, temporal, spatial, and causal relations between beliefs.
Extreme Coherentism (EC)	The belief that only coherence matters, and there is no foundational structure (no pyramid).
Extreme Foundationalism (EF)	The belief that only foundational beliefs matter, and there is no coherent system (no raft).
Moderate Coherentism (MC)	The belief that coherence is a necessary condition for foundational beliefs, but not the sole justification. There is a recognition of both foundational and coherentist aspects.
Moderate Foundationalism (MF)	The belief that foundational beliefs are necessary for coherence, but not the sole justification. Acknowledges the need for coherence while maintaining foundational premises.
Weak Coherentism or Foundationalism (W)	The belief that coherence and foundationalism entail each other to some degree. A middle ground that accepts some form of mutual dependence between foundational premises and coherence.
Chisholm’s Position	Chisholm defends a version of foundationalism that also incorporates a coherentist aspect. He argues that epistemic justification has both foundational and coherentist moments, meaning that coherence is seen as a necessary condition for securing knowledge. This suggests a form of Weak Foundationalism (W).
Bonjour’s Position	Bonjour, a self-proclaimed non-foundationalist, opposes the view that foundationalism is required for knowledge. He would likely defend Extreme Coherentism (EC) or Moderate Coherentism (MC), rejecting the foundationalist requirement for justification.
Sellars’ Position	Sellars does not clearly align with either extreme foundationalism or coherentism. He presents a more nuanced view that suggests a complex relationship between basic premises and coherence, potentially supporting the Weak Foundationalism (W) position, though his exact stance is difficult to place.

This table provides a structured overview of the metaphors used in the foundationalism vs. coherentism debate, as well as the various claims and positions within that debate, particularly focusing on the distinctions between extreme and moderate views.