“I do not think that it is possible for me to answer any question about this society that you imagine”
Yet you did answer it.
You wrote “I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors” where “it” = “a sustainable reason-based society which practices double standards.”
In this context, what you wrote was equivalent to:
“I think that [a sustainable reason-based society which practices double standards] may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.”
What are these “many factors” you refer to? Clearly you had something in mind.
How can it be possible and how can it not be possible?
In post #41 you wrote, “What are these “many factors” you refer to? Clearly you had something in mind.”
You are asking me questions about a society that you are imagining. The many factors that I refer to could be anything you imagine for your society from an extreme of: your society is ruled by an all-powerful deity that both allows double standards and allows your society to exist; to the simple statement of: in your society there are no double standards. How am I to know?
But let us put all this aside since it could be considered just to be semantics and I am interested in learning more of your thoughts on this subject.
I will I answer your question from post #36 with: Yes, I think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards.
I will provide an example. A society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, could impose an age requirement for entering into contracts. This society could state that for a contract to be legally binding, all parties to the contract have to be 18 years old or older. This age requirement would be a double standard because there would be a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people than to another. Yet even with the presence of this double standard, the society could be sustained.
In post #40 you wrote, “The exact phrasing is: No man may initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.”
I do not understand this statement. It is possible for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others. It happens all around the world every day.
Did you mean something like, “It is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others”? If that is the case, then I would ask you to explain why it is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.
In #42 if contract law requires a minimum age of 18 yrs to enter a legally binding argreement, how is that an example of a double standard? Wouldn’t a double standard mean that some 18 yr olds could not enter into contracts or that some 16 yr olds could?
You wrote in post #44, “In #42 if contract law requires a minimum age of 18 yrs to enter a legally binding argreement [sic], how is that an example of a double standard? Wouldn’t a double standard mean that some 18 yr olds could not enter into contracts or that some 16 yr olds could?”
It would depend on your definition of a double standard. In post #35, I defined a double standard as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another. In post #36, Jon Southall stated, “That definition is correct.”
In the example that I gave in post #42, there is a set of rules (contract law in your post) that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18.
In post #35, I defined a double standard as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.
That’s a terrible definition. You might as well have said that the definition of double standard is everything.
Nah that definition is fine Nicky. It is the correct definition.
Tadmjones is right though, if the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard.
An example of a double standard is holding that no-one may initiate physical force against you but you can initiate physical force against them. Would you agree?
In post #47 you wrote, “Tadmjones is right though, if the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard.”
You are now attempting to change the definition of a double standard from what I wrote in post #35 and you agreed to in post #36. Nowhere in the definition does it state anything about some standard being applied to everyone or a set of rules or principles applied to every individual. A double standard is defined as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.
So my example is an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. Your example is also an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a rule or principal, no-one may initiate physical force against you, that applies differently to one group of people, everyone but you, than to another group of people, you (a group of one).
In post #46 you wrote, “That’s a terrible definition. You might as well have said that the definition of double standard is everything.”
I agree with you that if you have a different definition of a double standard, then my definition of a double standard must seem terrible. I assume that you do have a different definition even though you did not provide one.
However, until you and I agree on the definition, of a double standard or anything, it is not possible to have further constructive dialogue. Do you have a definition of a double standard that you are willing to share? Perhaps we can agree on it.
In practical terms , can there really ‘be’ a double standard? Doesn’t standard presuppose uniformity, dictionary definitions notwithstanding. Perhaps you mean dual standards. It would be a stretch to consider a society that employs dual or multi standards as one based on reason.
In practical terms , can there really ‘be’ a double standard?
What do you mean ‘in practical terms’? Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition. The same problem came up in the last thread that FredAnyman started because his problem is epistemological.
In post #54 you wrote, “Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition.”
I do not understand the “we” in your statement. I may have a concept of a double standard, and tadmjones may have a concept of a double standard, and you or anyone else may have a concept of a double standard, but that does not mean that “we” have the same concept of a double standard.
Yet your statement seems to suggest, and I could be wrong, that everyone does, or at least should have, the same concept of a double standard. Is this what you are suggesting?
Yet your statement seems to suggest, and I could be wrong, that everyone does, or at least should have, the same concept of a double standard. Is this what you are suggesting?
Yes, I am saying that any functioning adult that speaks English should understand what a double standard is.
Maybe we have different concepts of “functioning” and “speak” and “understand”. Do I need to define each of those too?
What do you mean ‘in practical terms’? Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition. The same problem came up in the last thread that FredAnyman started because his problem is epistemological.
I meant in practical legalistic/governmental terms. Minimum legal age requirements for contract enforcement is not an example of a double standard. If a government identified a certain group and proscribed some action or other directed toward or invovling anyone in that group, but then ignored those same strictures and did not apply them to some members of the identified group , I would describe such action as caprisious or arbitrary , and not necessarily an example of a double standard.
There are phenomenon that are examples of double standards, but they invovle forming opinions about people or situations . Older men dating younger women vs cougars , and then claiming the standard should be age alone.
In post #56 you wrote, “Maybe we have different concepts of “functioning” and “speak” and “understand”. Do I need to define each of those too?”
Keeping in the spirit of the playfulness with which I assume you made the above statement, I will respond with a quote from you from post #54, “A concept is not equivalent to its definition.”
Putting the assume playfulness aside, you also wrote, “Yes, I am saying that any functioning adult that speaks English should understand what a double standard is.”
I am not suggesting that you, or I, or anyone else does not understand what a double standard is. I am very sure, based on your statements, that you fully understand your concept of a double standard. My point, which I will state again, is that your concept of a double standard, or my concept of a double standard, or anyone else’s concept of a double standard may be different.
It is similar to the concept of beauty. You may have an understating of what beauty is and I may have an understanding of what beauty is, and anyone else may have an understanding of what beauty is, but that does not mean that all of us are going to have the same understanding of what beauty is nor does it mean that we will all find same things to be beautiful.
You are not right, the law applying differently to over and under 18s is not an example of a double standard. The law about 18yo is an application of one standard. The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not. It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won’t but the criteria ought to be objective.
What you are saying would mean society applies double standards when it permits people with a driving licence to drive on the roads but not those without a licence. However that is not a double standard. It is the application of a single standard. Those who can prove they are competent to drive meet the required standard and so are licensed. Those who can’t prove it cannot show they meet the required standard and so are not permitted to use the roads. If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all. The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to. Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals.
The same applies in the moral sphere - would you say society practices double standards when it locks up criminals? Again I would say no - in a society with objective laws if someone breaks those laws they fall short of a standard all individuals are held to. A consequence of failing to achieve a moral standard is usually a reduction of personal liberty, likewise in the driving licence example one has less liberty to drive if they haven’t got a licence. If you fail to meet the required standards at work and your colleagues do, if your employer sacks you and keeps them they are not applying double standards.
Your definition is correct but you don’t understand it’s application. That is I think why you are finding it hard to distinguish between the appropriateness of retaliatory force and the inappropriateness of the initiation of force.