#deontic

[emilyryann]

Virtue In Our Lives

A key aspect of the Aretaic idea of virtue is the fact that virtue is on a scale, where too much or too little is a vice. This idea is something that connects very strongly to the world we live in today. There is major polarization on most topics in today's world, especially when you're talking about politics, life is increasingly becoming "black and white". There are extremes everywhere and I think most people would agree that humanity is at its worst when it is at an extreme, whether it is political, social, or even something personal. I think that Aristotle and other more modern philosophers like Anscombe argue that the best way to live is somewhere in the metaphorical "gray area".

In G.E.M Anscombe's article "Modern Moral Philosophy" She picks apart some of the Deontic theories because they don't allow for accounting of circumstance, they are too rigid. She talks a great deal about how instead of "morally right" and "morally wrong" we should think in terms of "just" and "unjust". There needs to be some allowance for what the situation is, for there may be cases where doing something illegal, or "wrong" may be for the best and may be the most just course of action. This is what it means to live in the gray area, in my opinion, to do what is best and not what is defined as "right". I think this "gray area" embodies the idea of virtue being on a scale and being to a degree. I agree with the idea that virtue shouldn't just be reduced to whether an action is good or bad, it's not realistic since the world will always present difficult and ambiguous situations. In an ideal world where everything is perfect and nothing is ever horribly complicated, I think Deontic ideas of virtue would be perfect, but the world is not that way in my experience.

I never realized how much these modern notions of virtue appear all around and I think it is important to recognize virtue and what it means to you as an individual.

G.E.M. Anscombe

[remembering-the-future]

In the early 2040s, breakthroughs in nanotechnology and marine biology converged to create a revolutionary field known as Foraminiferan Nanotechnology (FNT). This innovative domain leveraged the structural and functional properties of foraminifers, tiny marine organisms known for their intricate calcium carbonate shells, to develop advanced nanoscale devices. Scientists discovered that the precise and durable architecture of foraminifer shells could be replicated to create nano-bots capable of performing complex tasks within various environments, from medical applications inside the human body to environmental monitoring in the deep sea.

As FNT matured, researchers introduced the concepts of nodical and deontic frameworks to enhance the functionality and ethical deployment of these nanobots. The nodical framework, inspired by the nodal points in biological networks, enabled the creation of highly interconnected and adaptive nanobot swarms. These swarms could communicate and coordinate with each other in real-time, forming dynamic networks capable of responding to changing conditions with remarkable efficiency. This development was crucial in fields like targeted drug delivery, where precise and adaptive responses were necessary to treat complex diseases such as cancer.

The deontic framework, rooted in ethical philosophy, provided a structured approach to ensure the responsible use of FNT. By embedding deontic logic within the programming of nanobots, developers established ethical guidelines that governed their behavior, preventing misuse and ensuring compliance with societal values. This included protocols for privacy, consent, and environmental impact, which were critical as FNT applications expanded into various sectors. By the late 2050s, Foraminiferan Nanotechnology, enhanced by nodical and deontic principles, had become an integral part of technological advancement, driving progress while maintaining a strong ethical foundation.

[happi-speech]

Which flavor modal u want 🍦🍦🍦

[prototumblinguist]

epistemic and deontic readings

It should be night for a month just so we can see who panics who lives and who dies

[socoolinmypajamas]

Rayashki and Zeno: How a harsh environment shapes actions.

Sometimes, a perception is taken as a principle. A "cruel reality" can be described as a negative perception of the material world, used to assert a situation. "Reality is cruel", however consists in using the previously descrived perception as a fundamental truth or a proposition in which to base the foundations of a system of belief, of behaviour or of a chain of reason. Both are heavily present in Farewell Rayashki, a story all about the strenght of the colective, the indomitable human spirit in the face of adversity and what shapes the actions of those who persue a goal. With that in mind, I wanted to write... Not an analysis per se, but rather to build some sort of structure or perspective (whatever you want to call it) through which the story can be analyzed.

Now, imagine a matrix diagram where the X-axis goes from "Gemeinschaft" (Community) to "Gesellschaft" (Society), two terms taken from german sociologist, Ferdinand Tönnies, and the Y-axis goes from "Deontic" to "Epistemic" in a mix between a Gretchen McCulloch's linguistic sense and a Józef Maria Bocheński's philosophical sense. If everything I just said made no sense, don't worry. Here's a (very) rough explanation of what I'll mean with these two dichotomies through this post: X-axis: A classification of societal ties. "Gemeinschaft" refers to personal, direct interactions with emotional relationships (such as families or small towns like Rayashki) formed by people who strive to archive the goals of a collective. "Gesellschaft", on the other hand, is about indirect and formal interactions, with more rational relationships (like a company or an institution like Zeno) in which everyone band together to persue personal goals in common. Y-axis: A classification of actions as both modality (McCulloh) and authority (Bochenski). Roughly: "actions based on interpretations and beliefs done by someone with an authority based on their ammount of knowledge and experience" (Epistemic)" vs "actions based on rules and/or desires done by someone with a role or position that gives them the power to enforce them" (Deontic).

Upper-left: Gemeinschaft/Epistemic

Windsong's quest, mostly percieved as a fool's errand, is a classic underdog story. The lone reasercher who, disheartened by the lack of support from all the important academic institutions and societies, finds in the small town of Rayashki a more hospitable enviroment to persue her goals. She creats emotional conections with the community and soon finds more self-fulfilment in helping the townfolk than in other things like taking Zeno's offer or abandoning her studies, which are presented as more beneficial options from a rational point of view.

She confronts the notion of "cruel reality" and rejects "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. This action comes from what she knows (her study of ley lines) and beliefs (the people of Rayashki, the usefullness of her field of research).

Bottom-Left: Gesellschaft/Epistemic

You'll think he should be at the opposite side of Windsong BUT Bertolt, as the classical evil guy in your everyday underdog story, actually rejects the notion of "cruel reality", and accepts "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. His emotional detachment from the people of Rayashki, their values, and even their very same idea of community, comes from his role as a member of Zeno, an institution that exemplfies the impersonal and formal relationships of the Gesellschaft. He doesn't see himself as the evil corporate guy who's there to destroy their dream for a greedy goal, but as the savior who comes to provide the light of rationality to this uncultured rural people who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of primitive traditions and values. He defines himself as a "simple representative of Zeno, bound by their rules and orders, working tirelessly to help people in a world wreaked by The Storm", a description that allows him to minimize his negative perception of the reality of others while justifying operating under the principle of Reality is Cruel.

Bottom-Right: Gesellschaft/Deontic

Evgeni is shown through the story as a leader of Rayashki who deeply cares about his community BUT is willing to destroy it for the sake of a rational goal: protecting the lives of the townfolk.

He embraces the notion of "cruel reality", and accepts "Reality is Cruel" as a principle.

But how is HE in the opposite side of Windsong, instead of Bertolt? In Tönnies dichotomy of Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft, the relationships that are meant to keep people in communities and societies can also push them out: is all about wether the social ties become too tight or too lose to help us find self-fulfilment in them. Windsong found in a community what she couldn't find in society (validation and encouragment for her study of ley lines), while Evgeni thought he found in a society what he couldn't find in his community (a positive prospective for the people of Rayashki).

Upper-Right: Gemeinschaft/Deontic

While Bertolt is a man of the world, trying to expand the benefits of globalization by placing the needs of bigger groups above those of the little ones, what Vila is persuing isn't just a goal to archive, but a dream to share. She didn't became a part of Rayashki only to build an utopia: everyone living there were already doing that and Vila found meaning in developing strong emotional ties with everyone as they strive together to work hard for Rayashki.

However, unlike Windsong, she accepts the notion of "cruel reality", even if she doesn't agree with "Reality is Cruel" as a principle. This one si a bit tricky to explain.

It all comes down to their experiences while chasing their dreams and how that shaped their understanding of what a dream is.

For Vila, is something that kept her going. A cherished wish that inspired her to leave the rusalki and search for a new home. A goal she could share with the people of Rayashki. A hope to cling unto while she nourishes the sprouts of Rayashki while they are passengers of the ship called "St Pavlov's Foundation" while adrift in the vast sea of the outside world, so they can carry on the spirit of Rayashki. She accepts the "cruel reality" as something that could hinder her dreams, force her to adapt them, but never crush them.

For Windsong, the dream was but a promise turned into a burden. It was not something that comforted her if held tight, but rather something it pained her to let go. Accepting the "cruel reality" meant letting something die, and for someone who was struggling in all fronts, it meant taking a toll way to big for her to handle.

As the last ley line hunter, the dream is but a gamble turned into an investment. The chance of failure is there no matter what. Only thing she can do, is to work hard to reduce it as much as possible. To her, a "cruel reality" is something that crushes dreams. Is not enough to reject the use of this perception as a principle: her own experiences taught her that the perception itself can be a cancer. She might have a tendency to put herself down, to have doubts on what she does and to even be "realistic" in any situation she encounters. But there's ALWAYS a part of her fighting her perception of reality from turning into a negative one even if she lacks the proper arguments or mental state to do it effectively. Vila noticed that from day one, and began to slowly share with her the tools Windsong lacked, helping her become a more confident and capable person, while inadvertibly gaining a trusty partner to rely on.

Their experiences shaped them into people who complement each other incredibly well. Leaning into each other, they'll plant their seeds of hope into a new generation. For the study of ley lines; for Rayashki; for those who live in a world affected by The Storm; for those who'll survive it. *** To anyone who'll read this... whatever the hell it was till the end, thank you for time! Feel free ask me anything, correct me, chew this to bits with your bare teeth, whatever you like. I just haphazardly wrote it because I love this game so much.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Deontic aristotelian quantifier mai 68 political compass

[spades4cards]

••´º´•𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐥��𝐬𝐭•´º´••

×｡. Science and Mathematics ｡.× * General Relativity * Quantum Gravity

☯ Philosphy ☯ ൠ Branches of Philosophy ൠ * Metaphysics * Axiology * Epistemology * Logic * Ethics * Ethical Egoism * Relativism * Deontic Logic * Existentialism * Idealism * Philosophy of Mind * Materialism * Contemporary Philosophy * Monism * Philosophy of Religion * Stoicism ඏ Pillars of Philosophy ඏ * Knowledge * Truth * Critical Thinking * Culture

✎ Philosophers ✎ * Socrates * Descartes * Spinoza * Berkely * Hume * Marx * Russel * Heidegger * Wittgenstein * Popper * Turing * Fyodor Dostoevsky * Albert Camus * Friedrich Nietzsche * Osamu Dazai * Franz Kafka * Lev Tolstoy * Dante Alighieri * George Orwell

[onecornerface]

Drug use & drug harms - long version

I'm interested in feedback or sources from anyone who knows relevant stuff in economics, policy analysis, or whatever.

X = drug use (e.g. total volume of substances consumed) Y = drug-related harms (e.g. physical & mental harms to the user + harmful acts & omissions by users against nonusers) There is a phenomenon in drug policy where policymakers see “X causes Y”, then they aim to reduce X (in order to instrumentally reduce Y, in direct proportion); but the result is “the remaining X causes *more* Y (per average token instance of X)”-- to such a severe degree that the total Y increases (despite the reduction in X). Is there a name for this? This seems similar to Goodhart’s Law? I'm not sure if it is strictly an instance of it? I could also subdivide it into a few parts, like (1) "use-reduction sometimes increases average harm-per-use" and (2) "sometimes #1 happens to such a degree that it increases total harm (not only average harm)." I claim that #1 is clearly true, and that #2 is often true as well (at least in countries where many people use drugs). However, here I'm not so much concerned to defend these claims, but mainly to better *specify* them. I'm just mainly looking for terminology, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual tools to clarify the basic ideas. Pls halp. To illustrate the idea more: In theory, it makes sense to try to reduce (the total amount of) drug harms *by* reducing (the total amount of) drug use. Ceteris paribus, "less drug use" DOES mean "less drug harms." Obviously. Halving the drug use should halve the drug harms. If legalization would increase drug use, then legalization should increase the drug harms. Hence why so much of the debate is over what does or doesn't increase drug use, without even bothering to carve "use" from "harm." (Not to mention non-drug harms, and deontic considerations like rights & autonomy, which complicate the picture further. I will set these aside here.) Hence why drug prohibitionists (like the ONDCP, led by the "drug czar") often cite use-reduction as their main proxy target for success in drug policy. (Some people also consider use-reduction an *intrinsic* value. I think this view is morally indefensible, for reasons I won't go into here. I'll be treating use-reduction as only *instrumentally* valuable. Also, some people slide between treating "use-reduction" as intrinsically valuable vs. treating it as instrumentally valuable-- I think this may involve a motte-and-bailey, or pandering to multiple audiences at once {e.g. keeping both moralists and pragmatists on board with prohibition] or suchlike.) However, there is a big problem: The "ceteris paribus" clause does NOT obtain-- and this is precisely because the *methods* of drug-use-reduction *increase* the harm-per-use. Prohibition may reduce total drug use, but prohibition *also* ensures that the average token instance of drug use is more harmful (compared to the average token instance of drug use under legalization). (For simplicity, I'm focused mainly on simple prohibition and simple legalization-- leaving out the many variants of each, and the many in-between positions.) Sometimes this harm-increase is a *byproduct* of the methods of use-reduction (e.g. cutting down the drug sales, leading to more dangerous volatility in the remaining drug market). And sometimes this harm-increase is an *intended* method of use-reduction (e.g. via direct and indirect punishments of users, like arrests and housing-evictions). In any case, this entails that use-reduction is a very flawed metric of drug policy success-- because the methods of prohibition will complicate the relationship between drug use and drug harm. (For "Goodhart’s Law"-esque reasons?) This is a problem worth analyzing even if one disagrees with my claim that prohibition increases total harm.

[ijosijen]

The Culprit:

The Cause:

The default word order of High Gavellian is, for the most part SOV. Yet verbs used as auxiliaries (a very small class) tend to sit directly after the subject.

High Gavellian has several constructions that switch the sentence to SVO. Including the subjunctive + main verb fraes, which forms the optative.

However, fraes can also be used as an auxiliary verb, the deontic abilitive (to be able to X).

The Victim's Path

An... fraes...

"Ok, there's no subject, but An FIN is marked for first person, so I'll assume that it's a pro-dropped 1st person."

"Passed FIN and have entered the predicate. Ok, now we're passing the auxiliary verb fraes. Technically, there should be an article here marking fraes as non-finite, but both the writer and I use aux constructions like this often enough that we can automatically assume it's there."

note from Sijen: there is no non-finite marker there. not even an elided one.

"I have parsed the last two words as I can..."

"We're in default word order, SOV, so now that we're past fraes the next constituents that i should find are the objects. At the end of the objects, I'll find the sentence's main verb."

An... (do) fraes...ne Theden do s'ix aôin...

"Woah! this next constituent is huge! ne Theden is a possessive, so i still need to find the possessed head."

"Great news: do s'ix aôin is valid head for Theden to be possessing. There's only one word left in the sentence, so it's gotta be that verb."

"I have parsed the sentence until now as I can [verb] Theden's long-awaited end. Maybe the next word - the awaited verb - will be see or guarantee or something. Either way, this is a sensible sentence to me so far."

An... (do) fraes...ne Theden do s'ix aôin... sil?!

"...sil is not a finite verb. the finite/non-finite distinction isn't really a thing for some verbs, but it definitely is for this one, and this verb doesn't meet it."

"I have parsed this sentence as I can arriving Theden's long-awaited end. This is nonsensical and ungrammatical to me."

Figuring Out What Went Wrong

"My first thought might have thought that the writer simply forgot to conjugate it, but they also used FIN at the start. they wouln't have done this had they wished to use the mutually exclusive finite sil."

"The non-finite sil would have make sense if it was an argument of the previous constituent, a construction that I'd have found pretty normal to parse. The only reason I didn't do this is because I had been expecting the final word to be a verb."

"Though the non-finite sil has opened me to considering ...Theden's long-awaited end arriving as a possible constituent (it makes about as much sense as the rest of this odd & ungrammatical sentence), that still doesn't solve the issue of the sentence's lack of a main verb."

An... (do) fraes...ne Theden do s'ix aôin sil ??

"The only other verb in this sentence is fraes, but it's currently acting as an auxiliary."

"Or is it?"

"I know that fraes can also act as a main verb. Though this would normally be expected to appear at the end, I also know that it can appear as the penultimate constituent in several grammatical constructions."

"One of those grammatical constructions is the optative, which takes a single nominalised clause as its object constituent. This matches up with the rest of the sentence, should I parse sil as the head of that hypothetical big Theden's long-awaited end arriving clause."

"But there's still an issue? fraes is in a non-finite aux. clause, merely having its gerund marker elided, while sil is in the finite main clause, as it lacks such a marker."

"Unless... Unless fraes never had such a marker at all, and I read a null where there was none.

An... (!) fraes...ne Theden do s'ix aôin sil.

"The elision of sil's gerund marker is slightly more marked, but still very much possible, especially considering that its non-finite status is also marked by its lack of inflection. But it could be there."

An... fraes...(do) ne Theden do s'ix aôin sil.

"Having swapped which two constituents I think are finite and non-finite, I am now parsing the sentence as I hope_for Theden's long-awaited end arriving, or in a more Englishey format I hope that Theden's long-awaited end arrives."

"That was a very rude sentence. Simply choosing not to elide a short marker would have kept this from confusing me entirely. Additionally, had any verb beyond the five (5) that inflect been used, the intended meaning would have been ambiguous."

"This sentence was deliberately worded to trip me up."

note from Sijen: this sentence was a complete accident, if a delightful one.

[horsesource]

“The possibility of freedom exists because, in ‘the social’, deontic powers aren’t necessarily a prerequisite for sociality. What ‘the social’ demonstrates is that complex sociability can take place without the aid of status functions or deontic powers, and that rather than living in the world [the world that we have made, and cannot entirely help ourselves from making, and the strange power that it exercises over us, its makers] we can at least partially live in the Background [grounding conditions, instinct, our species] instead, without any loss of functionality.”

[partnerindestiny]

i'm extremely mad that shez's sword is somehow unnamed and not a prf (i know that's due to hopes being a warriors game, but still) so i went down a rabbit hole naming it.

Naming the Unnamed 

(AKA what I choose to name Shez's sword and why) (because why isn't it named!)

Naming

The name I choose to use for Shez's sword - until (if, LOL) IntSys gives us a real name - is Zeno. 

Zeno is a Greek philosopher - one of the Eleatics. The Eleatics are the philosophers that succeeded the Ionian philosophers - the earliest of the Ionian philosophers being Thales. Epimenides, as well, is a Greek philosopher. I’m sure if you’re reading this document, you knew  about these name references, but I felt it was worthwhile to mention them here.

Themes / Reasoning

Zeno is most known for the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. This paradox effectively boils down to the idea that in order to move from one place to the next, one must first move half the distance between their start and their destination. However, if one continues moving in halves, they will never reach that destination - and yet, clearly, we do. 

Even at the time, Zeno’s paradoxes were all viewed as ridiculous, but in modern literature specifically that of Achilles and the tortoise is often used thematically. I believe this theme of never reaching a destination can be applied to Shez - the cycle cannot end here. 

In metaphor, this paradox has also been used to describe the concept that two people can never truly touch (i.e Stay from the musical Amelie). Points at Shez and Arval. Cries. 

Rejected names

Kenosis - κένωσις; the “self emptying” of Jesus.

Déontos - δέοντος; in reference to deontic logic, which I am under qualified to properly explain in a footnote of a Fire Emblem tumblr post.

[whales-are-gay]

wtf is epistemic and deontic stop swearing at me....

[futuristicstarfishcollection]

"Shue develops an analogy between greenhouse gas emissions and a person who, as a hobby, likes to construct land mines that will detonate in several decades. Suppose that this person also endows an annuity, which matures around the same time that the land mine detonates, and provides financial compensation to the victims of the explosion. This does not make the hobby permissible, Shue observes, because the right to physical security serves as a strict deontic constraint, and so no amount of compensation could justify its infringement."

I think this should be considered morally permissible on the basis of "If it's funny enough it should be allowed"

[tomdeckard]

3.27.24 thoroughbred

overhand toss not too much for

making the soft skills feel enchanting

like the broad webs woven into foreplay

like the dolls we hand the crushing debt to

in a moment when the dust begins to settle

or athletics wane to simply set the table

we are what the ghosts have been demanding

it is time to gauge the caliber of deontic sport

[bogosbinted]

Epistemic versus deontic modality

[interstellarbolero]

The Foll Officium

Form of government: Libertarian Demarchy 

Reigonal control: Unitary state in name, though functionally a confederation of various gigacorporations

Political ideology: Deontic, meritocratic, libertarian

\ \ \

Species name: Foll 

Capital planet: Follum

Primary solar system: Foltha

Total member systems: 17

\ \ \

Cultural summary: It is the duty of parents to protect their children. It is the duty of all the posia in a hive to play their role. It is the duty of every cell in an organism to work to keep the whole alive. Duty is ever present in nature, as it should be in the lives of all Foll. Duty is the set of rules that must be followed by everyone in order the maintain the Officium. To refuse one’s duty is to forsake the Officium.

Outlook on aliens: The universe is large and full of opportunity, as other sapients can be communicated with to improve the Officium. They can offer new insights and trades and resources. But if they cross the Foll, they will face its full might.