Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Rules
>
Rules and Housekeeping
Mod
Mod
I remind all posters in the present group to consult the group rules near the top of the group home page, especially the rules prohibiting ad hominem attacks and off-topic issues.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
(revised 11/5/2018)
Mod
The Goodreads format does not preclude any group member from creating any new topic in this group. However, it does permit me, as Moderator, to delete a topic.
If you wish to start a new topic on a particular ethical or political philosopher, please go ahead and do so subject to the following provisos: (1) Please give the full name and dates of birth/death, to the extent known, of the philosopher in the topic header, e.g., “Thucydides (ca. 460 BCE – ca. 400 BCE)” or “Plato (426-347 BCE).” “Ca.” means “circa.” “BCE” means “Before Common Era” (formerly, “BC”). “CA” means “Common Era (formerly “AD”). We have many non-Christian members of this group, and we should therefore use “BCE” and “CE” instead of the old-fashioned Western terms “BC” (“B.C.”) or “AD” (“A.D.”). It is not necessary to use “CE” (“C.E.”) for dates after the commencement of the Common Era unless the philosopher's life straddles both eras. Inclusive dates within the same century of the Common Era should not repeat the century digit(s) in the year of death, e.g., “George Orwell (1903-50).” To avoid confusion, however, please use the entire year for BCE dates (e.g., the Thucydides example above). (2) If the philosopher wrote primarily in the field of political philosophy, create the topic in the “Political Philosophy” folder. If the philosopher wrote primarily in the field of ethics, create the topic in the “Ethics” folder. If the philosopher wrote substantially in both fields, create the topic in the “Both Political and Ethical Philosophy” folder, or (as I have done with Plato and Aristotle) separate the discussions, if possible, between the “Political Philosophy” and “Ethics” folders. (3) Do not create topics for philosophers who do not, explicitly or (strongly) implicitly, discuss political philosophy or ethics. We tried an experiment with a topic on Heidegger, which I eventually deleted because it went far off topic and started to descend to ad hominem attacks. Similarly, I have deleted a topic on Derrida. Discussions of metaphysics and/or religion, except insofar as they are directly related to political philosophy or ethics (as in the case of political theology), belong in the “Philosophy” or other Goodreads groups and not in the present “Political Philosophy and Ethics” group.
If you wish to start a new substantive topic, e.g., “Parliamentary Democracy,” please consult with me (via Goodreads message or post or at https://alanjohnson.academia.edu/contact) before doing so, as I wish to keep such substantive topics sufficiently general and relevant for group discussion. Additionally, we already have a large number of substantive topics, and we need to keep the number of topics manageable for members and other readers of this group. (September 18, 2022 Note: See post 48 [August 25, 2022] below. November 4, 2023 Note: See also post 204, November 4, 2023, in the “Ethical Philosophy of Aristotle” topic.)
Creation of new topics without compliance with the foregoing rules may result in my deletion, without prior notice, of the topic and the post(s) contained therein.
Alan E. Johnson
Founding Moderator
(edited September 18, 2022; September 23, 2023; and November 4, 2023)
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
(edited September 18, 2022)
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
10/9/2018 Note: For further explanation of this rule, see post 21 below.
#13; agreed..however I'd like to add a reminder too. Its well to remember the 'asynchronous' nature of a chat-thread on the internet. The functionality itself, can takes away valuable human tones and inflections, all the natural pauses and signalling that we do verbally.
In a forum, its easy to 'run over' someone else's remark. All sorts of cross-traffic can happen. Thus one can accidentally appear to 'not be listening'. Two people can post at the same time, (overlapping) or appear to be ignoring each other--too much of a gap between replies--when they're not committing either gaffe. Its just the way messages are logged. One can wind up in a situation like this: 'I already said that'...'what, didn't you hear me'...'didn't you read what I just said'... Even when two adults are speaking cordially and professionally.
I just think this is well for us all to be mindful of. In a face-to-face chat, we benefit from 'conversational cues' we don't enjoy here.
Mod
Yes, this is a defect of all written communication. On the other hand, written communication provides an opportunity for greater reflection and greater precision before one commits oneself to words. The modern "texting" format with its instantaneous exchanges tends to merge the worst parts of both means of communication. I try to think carefully before I write so as to preserve the historical advantages (before texting) of the written word. But that is not always possible when the posts fly in a fast and furious manner. Let's all (myself included) try to write carefully and deliberatively in order to try to preserve the advantages of the written word while attempting to mitigate its disadvantages.
I concur. I know I myself am a better writer than speaker. This 'instantaneousness' of the internet is what is the real wrinkle
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
(edited 12/1/2018)
Mod
(minor edits on 10/7/2018 and 9/18/2022)
Mod
This group is about political philosophy and ethics. It is not about religion except insofar as religion is directly related to political philosophy or ethics, e.g., the topic of separation of church and state. Our group members include people of many different religious faiths as well as atheists and agnostics. This is not the place for people to argue about theological issues. There are other groups, both within the Goodreads family and without, for such disputation. I refuse to let this group become a locus of religious wars. That was never my intent in founding it, and I will not permit it to happen.
Additionally, as I have previously stated, please do not create any new substantive topics without my prior review and approval. You may, without my approval, create topics about particular political or ethical philosophers. (See post 5 above.)
Henceforth, posts and topics that clearly violate the group rules will be deleted without prior notice. Group members who egregiously or persistently violate the rules will be permanently removed from the group. If you don't like the rules, you are free to withdraw from the group.
Please be guided accordingly.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
I do not necessarily respond to every comment with which I disagree. Please do not assume that I agree with a post just because I don't respond to it.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
(revised September 18, 2022)
Mod
There is one exception to this rule, and it an exception that proves the rule. One may comment in a substantive manner about political leaders who appear, from all indications, to be attempting to subvert the principles of a democratic constitutional political system and convert it to an authoritarian regime. At the present time, the only US political leader who sufficiently meets this description is President Donald J. Trump. However, any such comments should not focus on current concrete political issues, e.g. arguments about Trumpcare versus Obamacare, etc.
This rule does not preclude comment on overall constitutional issues, e.g., the Electoral College, the First Amendment, and so forth. It also does not preclude discussion of general issues that have been subjects of political philosophy or theory for decades, centuries, or millennia But any such comments should not descend into partisan rants.
JANUARY 1, 2022 NOTE: See the modification of the current events rule stated above at post 43 (January 1, 2022) below.
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
The following excerpt from a recent book on informal logic is a very good elaboration of the rule stated above in post 10:
Essentially, reasonable dialogue should be open, and should encourage the asking of probing questions on all relevant aspects of a controversial issue. The adversarial cut and thrust of pointed criticisms and forceful rebuttals is not in itself bad or fallacious. In fact, this adversarial interplay which pits one argument against another is, within limits, an essential aspect of revealing and enlightening argumentation. The rules of reasonable dialogue should not be so tight that they exclude room for free argumentation.Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., Kindle ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 34.
Reasonable argument characteristically does have an adversarial aspect, because an arguer is trying to persuade or win over an audience or another arguer. When this adversarial aspect of the argument becomes too aggressive or personal, an argument tends to become less reasonable and more bellicose. Yet the adversarial nature of argument is not in itself bad or contrary to reason. For in argument on a controversial issue, the strength of an argument should be judged on how well it has fared in free discussion against countervailing arguments. In scientific inquiries, the test of an argument is whether it can be falsified by contrary empirical evidence. In disputation on controversial issues, where reasoned conviction is the best outcome one can hope for, the test of an argument is whether it can be refuted by contrary arguments in reasonable dialogue. Thus the adversarial aspect of reasonable dialogue is, or at least can be, an important part of what makes the dialogue reasonable. The adversarial aspect of a dispute is not necessarily, in itself, a bad thing.
Mod
I myself sometimes cite the New York Times, the Washington Post, or other subscription-based services, but these media sources allow every reader full access for 30 days (New York Times) or 14 days (Washington Post) to a few articles in their publications every month (see the August 18, 2022 and February 26, 2025 notes below) when I use a “gift article” option. I also sometimes cite essays in scholarly data bases such as JSTOR, wherein nonsubscribers can read the referenced articles online (perhaps with a cap on the number of articles), though they cannot download them without a subscription or without paying for an individual download. (Those who have institutional access to JSTOR through, for example, their present or former universities or colleges, can access and download most articles.)
(The foregoing was edited on February 26, 2025.)
August 18, 2022 Note:
For many months now, I have been providing links to New York Times and Washington Post articles that I have “gifted” pursuant to my subscriptions to these online sources. Each of these subscriptions allows me to “gift” such links for up to ten articles each month. The reader can freely access such articles for up to 30 ( New York Times) or 14 (Washington Post) days notwithstanding the usual paywalls. (edited February 26, 2025)
February 26, 2025 Note:
Posters may cite/link online articles that are behind a paywall (and are not “gifted” per above) if they summarize the article. In order to avoid copyright infringement, they may selectively quote from the article. Reproducing in this forum an entire article that is behind a paywall is (very probably) a copyright violation, unless the article is reproduced in a free online source such as MSN that has obviously made arrangements with the source for such reproduction.
Some online sources are not behind a paywall but nevertheless require the reader to create a free online account before fully reading a particular article. It is not a violation of this rule to link such articles as long as some indication is given regarding the contents of the article (including the title of the article where the title is self-descriptive) and the article is relevant to the topic of this Goodreads group in which it is linked.
Since hardly any books are free (unless they are fully reproduced, without charge, on Academia.edu, Google Books, Internet Archive, HathiTrust Digital Library, etc.), books may be cited or linked in discussion, as long as some indication is given regarding the contents of the book and the book is relevant to the topic of this Goodreads group in which it is cited.
Mod
Mike Takac has introduced this group to the constructal law of physics and his allegation that this physics concept applies by analogy to ethical and political phenomena. In so doing, he has followed in the footsteps of Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering. I have reviewed Bejan's most recent book here and Mike's book here. I have also had numerous exchanges with Mike about his approach in the Constructal Theory topic of this group.
Insofar as it is not directly relevant to political philosophy or ethics, the constructal law is outside the scope of this group. Many of the comments about the constructal law have, indeed, been far afield of the subjects of political philosophy and/or ethics. Instead of deleting such discussions, I created the Constructal Theory topic with the purpose of confining all such comments to that topic. All discussions of purported analogues of the constructal law outside the realm of physics (including but not limited to political philosophy and/or ethics) must also be confined to the Constructal Theory topic. Otherwise, this entire group will be transformed into a group focused on constructal law, as was beginning to happen before I created the separate Constructal Theory topic. If someone wants to create an entirely separate Goodreads group on the constructal law, they have a perfect right to do so. As moderator of the Political Philosophy and Ethics Goodreads group, I will not permit this group to be transformed into a group focused on the constructal law.
Accordingly, going forward, any comments on the constructal law must be confined to the Constructal Theory topic. Comments not complying with this rule will be deleted, and repeat violators of this rule will be removed from this group.
11/21/2018 Addendum: Mike Takac is no longer a member of this Goodreads group. As he has been the sole proponent in the group of the constructal theory, I have closed the "Constructal Theory" topic to further comments and have archived that topic.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
September 17, 2021 Note: The "Archived Topics" folder and all topics contained therein have now been deleted. Going forward, posts not complying with the rules in the present topic will be deleted without prior notice.
Mod
11/19/2018 NOTE:
The present "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group focuses on ethical and political philosophy. Metaphysics, ontology, theology, natural science, and other such inquiries are within the scope of this subject matter only insofar as they are relevant to ethical and political philosophy, and any comments regarding same should explain that relevance directly. (Noncomplying comments will be deleted without further notice.) Discussions not related to ethical or political philosophy belong in other Goodreads groups, for example the Philosophy group.
The definitive theme of the present group is well illustrated by the following quotation from Cicero:
But numbers and motions, and the beginning and end of all things, were the subjects of the ancient philosophy down to Socrates, who was a pupil of Archelaus, who had been the disciple of Anaxagoras. These made diligent inquiry into the magnitude of the stars, their distances, courses, and all that relates to the heavens. But Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil.Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations, bk. 5, §§ 3-4, in Cicero's Tusculan Disputations . . . , trans. C. D. Yonge (New York: Harper, 1899), 165-66. Cf. Plato, Phaedo 95a-102a.
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
September 17, 2021 Note: The "Archived Topics" folder and all topics contained therein have now been deleted. Going forward, posts not complying with the rules in the present topic will be deleted without prior notice.
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
This group currently has more than 2,000 members. However, only a few of the members contribute to the group's discussions, perhaps because many members are young and/or have time-consuming work or family obligations. When, however, members have something relevant to say (or ask) that they have thought out and can express clearly, I encourage them to post comments accordingly, subject, of course, to the rules stated on the group home page and in the present topic.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
There are often questions as to whether a nation should use military force against another state actor, whether offensively or defensively. There are also questions about the use of military force against nonstate actors who initiate violence against civilians in the name of religion, ideology, or other nebulous interests. I will not at this time prohibit the discussion of such issues, insofar as such discussion is part of a relevant topic and otherwise conforms to the group rules.
On the other hand, advocacy of immediate private violence against others, e.g., advocacy of terrorism, is forbidden. Any post advocating such action will be immediately deleted and the poster removed from the group.
The problem that has recurrently presented itself is whether a group member may express approval of past mass murder of civilians, e.g., the mass executions of the French Revolution and/or of the Bolshevik revolution and Stalinist aftermath. (So far we do not have anyone expressing approval of Hitler's genocide, but that may yet happen, given current national trends.) I am not at this time going to delete the posts that have already been filed on this subject. However, going forward, any such posts will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be removed from the group. People may have a right to express such opinions in a public forum, but that can be done elsewhere. It will not be permitted in this particular forum.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
December 25, 2021 Note: See also post 42, below.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Goodreads uses HTML formatting for italics, bold, etc. If you are interested in learning how to use HTML on Goodreads, see https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/... for details. Posters in this Goodreads group are not, however, required to use HTML formatting.
Mod
For several months now, it has not been necessary to delete any posts or remove any members for noncompliance with the foregoing rules. I wish to thank everyone for their cooperation.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator
Mod
(revised September 18, 2022)
Mod
I noticed today when trying to post a comment in our group that Goodreads would not allow me to post a link to an internet source outside of Goodreads. I inquired about this in the Goodreads “Help” and received this reply:
Disabled direct message previews and comment links to external sitesNeedless to say, this will hamper our style in the present group. However, there is nothing I can do about it. We’ll have to see whether Goodreads continues with this policy indefinitely or whether they will modify it at some point in the future. As soon as I receive any notice of a modification of the above-quoted policy, I will post a follow-up comment in the present topic.
________________________________________
We take the responsibility of protecting our customers’ security seriously. We have disabled text previews from direct messages in Goodreads email notifications and links to external sites from appearing in user comments, after detecting a suspicious pattern of message and comment activity from some accounts.
This is part of our work to deter spam and protect our community, and we'll provide updates directly on Goodreads Help on the status of these issues.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
Goodreads now informs me as follows: “You can still post the URL of a website, just not using HTML.” Feliks also communicated this to me yesterday.
Mod
"It is inconvenient, but the html was being used to disguise links to sales sites so they disabled it for now. "
Mod
I wish to remind all group members of the civility rules (including but not limited to the rule against ad hominem attacks) set forth in the present topic and on the home page for this group. I recently had to remove someone from this group for noncompliance with those rules.
Compliance with these rules has, however, improved over the years. I have only had to remove one member so far this year.
Mod
The fact that some professors consider themselves entitled to commit such civility violations and have even publicly advocated such practice does not excuse any member of this group who chooses to imitate such behavior. Be careful in your choice of role models!
Mod
Along this line, I will no longer permit a member to ask another member about their personal history. I have not deleted such posts in the past but will do so in the future. If you want to address that issue, you can message the person privately, and they can choose whether or not to respond. I don't think that questioning another member about their personal history is appropriate in this public forum.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator
Mod
Mod
Mod
In post 19, I stated the following
As I have explained in the rules at the top of the group home page and in various topics of this group, this forum is not the place for arguing about current hot-button political issues. It is not a left-right dogfight site. There are plenty of such sites on the internet. Please take any such issues to those sites. Violations of this rule will result in my deletion of the offending posts and possible removal of the offender from the group.I then listed certain exceptions to this rule. Over the years, however, the exceptions have tended to swallow the rule.
Post 19 formalized comments to the same effect that I had made in other topics at earlier times.
When I founded this group in 2014, the political situation was considerably different from what it is today. We had not yet experienced the whole Trumpian phenomenon of demagogic big lies leading, ultimately, to an violent attack against the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to stop a Congressional proceeding mandated by the Constitution. The political issues in 2014 were serious, but they were not existential.
In view of the changed circumstances, I am no longer requiring that posters avoid current topics. However, I will revert back to the earlier rule if experience proves that we are unable to handle current issues without descending into the dogfight mode of so many other websites. Posters must proceed with civility, especially with regard to other posters with whom they may disagree. Do not make ad hominem or similar attacks on other members of this group. If we are able to discuss these matters without hostility between group members, I will keep the present modification of the current events rule in effect. Otherwise, I will revert back to the earlier rule.
I have been thinking about this modification for the last several weeks. It is appropriate that I post it on the first day of 2022.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
I don’t object, in principle, to the use of pseudonyms (or first names only) in this Goodreads group. Before my retirement from law practice in 2012, I never participated in social media of any kind (including but not limited to Goodreads), because I didn’t want bosses, opposing counsel, parties, or judges to be able to read (and react to) my social media posts. If I had decided to participate in Goodreads during those years, I would have used a pseudonym myself. Since my retirement, however, it doesn’t matter whether others can identify my Goodreads (or other) posts, and I accordingly use my own name.
That said, I don’t approve of the use of pseudonyms to disguise nefarious objectives, e.g. terrorism. See the remarks above regarding the advocacy of violence.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator of the “Political Philosophy and Ethics” Goodreads group
November 8, 2024 Note: See the “New Policy regarding Private Profiles and Pseudonyms” at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... (post # 56, November 9, 2024, in this topic).
Mod
When posting comments in this group, we sometimes “reply” to or otherwise reference earlier posts. This is confusing when the location of the earlier post is not identified, especially when the reference is to a comment that was posted years ago.
In my experience and to the best of my knowledge, posts in a particular topic of this Goodreads group are automatically numbered on desktop and laptop computers, though there may be some exceptions of which I am not aware. Also, in my experience (on an Android phone), the numerical sequence of the posts is not numbered on mobile phones, but the date of the post is shown.
Accordingly, going forward, when referring to an earlier post that does not immediately precede the post you are writing, please identify both the number (if available) and date of the earlier post so that readers can more easily find the post that is being referenced. The date for someone posting, for example, in Kenya might appear to be different from the date of someone posting in the United States as a result of different time zones, but readers will know that such date corresponds to their own or is a day before or after the date that appears on their screens.
Here is an example of how to do it. Suppose I am replying in post 254 on July 23, 2022, to post 84 in the same topic made by X on June 18, 2016. I would thus begin post 254 as follows:
X wrote (#84, June 18, 2016): [quoting portion of post 84]. [I would then follow this with my own comment.]Since we have an international membership, posters in, for example, the United Kingdom or posters following the Chicago Manual of Style might prefer to identify the date as 18 June 2016. It doesn’t matter what date format is used, as long as readers in all countries can identify it. Given the different dating conventions, we should spell out the date rather than abbreviate it. For example, “6/18/2016” (USA style) might be confusing to persons living in countries that follow the United Kingdom / Chicago Manual of Style dating convention.
Also, if you are referring in a post in one topic to a post in a different topic, the other topic should be identified, for example: X wrote (#84, June 18, 2016, in the “Media Ethics” topic: [quoting portion of post 84].
The Goodreads app on Android phones and perhaps some other devices do not have a “reply” function. In such case (or if you prefer not to quote the earlier post), you could simply state something like this: “X stated in post #84 (June 18, 2016) that . . . .”
I will try to comply with the foregoing new rule in the future, and I request that all other persons posting comments referencing earlier comments do the same. It will not be necessary to add this information if the post to which you are referring immediately precedes your present comment.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator of the “Political Philosophy and Ethics” Goodreads group
Mod
Feliks alerted me to the possibility of linking the exact post when cross-referencing to it. The method he suggested didn’t work on my computers, but, through trial and error, I figured out a method that works on my laptop and desktop.
My procedure is to click the date/time field in the post to which you are referring. That will give you a message number in the address bar for that page (usually at the top of the page). Copy that specific address, and then use it in the message in which you are cross-referencing that post.
Example:
See post 1017 (July 20, 2022) in this topic.I have, in the above example, used the Goodreads/html method of hyperlinking (see the first bullet point at https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/...). Alternatively, you can type:
See post 1017 (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...) (July 20, 2022) in this topic.Please note that in either case you must also include the date, since this system does not work on Android and perhaps other devices.
The foregoing procedure is not mandatory. You can, alternatively, use the system set forth in the preceding post.
Mod
As a corollary to this rule, comments in this group should refrain from name-calling—both regarding members of this group and others outside of this group. In a previous post, I myself called Murray Rothbard an “idiot” for supporting, in his later years, theocracy. I have now changed the wording of that post to conform to the present rule, even though I made it clear why I felt that designation was warranted. In a recent, deleted post, one group member called a designated group of people “a$$holes.” On other occasions, group members have used the term “moron” to refer to certain people outside the group, and I myself quoted H. L. Mencken using that term. There may be other examples (including in my own posts) of such name-calling.
Merriam-Webster (https://unabridged.merriam-webster.co...) defines “name-calling” as “the use of opprobrious designations especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without due and unimpassioned consideration of relevant facts.”
Such name-calling is inconsistent with paragraph one, above. Therefore, let’s all be careful to avoid such language in the future. I admit that there is sometimes a fine line. In general, if one explains why one has arrived at a certain conclusion about someone’s argument outside the group based on reason and evidence, that will not violate the rule. There is sometimes (perhaps often) a basis for moral judgment of public positions taken by others. (I discuss this on pages 88-92 of my book Reason and Human Ethics.) However, crude, pejorative language such as “idiot,” “moron,” etc. should be avoided. I will myself certainly try to avoid such terminology in the future.
Mod
The reason I have created many separate specific topics in this group is so readers (now or in the future) can more easily find comments on a particular topic without having to go through many or all topics. I see this group as being a research resource, especially for young people trying to navigate their way through the fields of ethical or political philosophy. This group has already existed for more than eight years. I envision it continuing to be online decades from now (long after I’m gone, which raises a succession question regarding who will be the moderator thereafter (September 18, 2022 Note: See post 50 [September 18, 2022] below).
Accordingly, please post your comments in the most appropriate topic. It is true that all of us (myself included) tend to digress when commenting on a particular topic and set forth material that more appropriately belongs to another topic. As a general rule, however, please try to stick to the topic at hand. If you do digress in this manner, please put a cross-reference to your discussion in the appropriate topic (identifying the topic of the original discussion, the post number, if available to you, and the date).
Thank you.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator
Mod
Evidently, I did not make myself sufficiently clear in the above-referenced posts, so I will try again. It is not acceptable to assert or repeat unsourced or uncorroborated alleged facts in this forum about any philosophical, historical, or political matter. The internet is full of misinformation and disinformation. If a poster asserts a fact that is not well known and accepted by scholars, the poster must cite the source of that fact and whether said source has cited a more primary source (in which case the poster must set forth the source’s citation of the more primary source).
Posters who repeatedly violate this or the above-referenced rules will be removed from this group without further notice.
Alan E. Johnson
Founder and Moderator
Mod
I am in my later seventies in age and need to start thinking about who will be moderator of this forum after I pass or become mentally impaired, whichever comes first. I have been reminded of this quandary as a result of the fact that I will be having a medical procedure on September 29 and will be in the hospital and probably incommunicado for at least a couple of days at that time. It is quite likely that I will not have any problems with that procedure, but I nevertheless need to think about the future.
For the time being, I have made my wife, Mimi, co-moderator of this group. Since she is only a few years younger than I, it makes sense to explore the possibility of a younger co-moderator at some point during the next few years. However, I may defer that decision for awhile. In the meantime, in the event of my untimely passing or mental incapacitation, Mimi will remain moderator. Since she is not an active participant in this group, I see her role in such case as being mainly an enforcer of the rules set forth in the present “Rules and Housekeeping” thread. She would also arrange for a younger and more active participant in this group to become moderator if I have not already done so. She has agreed to assume these responsibilities in this kind of scenario.
(edited September 24, 2022)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The present "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group focuses on ethical and political philosophy. Metaphysics, ontology, theology, natural science, and other such inquiries are within the scope of this subject matter only insofar as they are relevant to ethical and political philosophy. For example, the “Free Will” topic is relevant to ethics even though it involves metaphysical, ontological, theological, and scientific issues. But discussions not related in any way to ethical or political philosophy belong in other Goodreads groups, for example the Philosophy group.
The definitive theme of the present group is well illustrated by the following quotation from Cicero:Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations, bk. 5, §§ 3-4, in Cicero's Tusculan Disputations . . . , trans. C. D. Yonge (New York: Harper, 1899), 165-66. Cf. Plato, Phaedo 95a-102a.
Posts should be polite and not degenerate into ad hominem attacks. The purpose here is to seek light, not heat--rational discourse, not shouting matches. Leave your cable news persona at home and put on your philosopher's mantle when entering this group. Rational argumentation is welcome; emotional hectoring is not. All who are genuinely and seriously interested in political philosophy and/or ethics are welcome. Internet "trolls" and other posters failing to comply with these rules will be removed from membership. Posters who persist in raising issues that are outside the scope of the subject matter of this group will also be removed from the group.
For new posts, use the most relevant existing topic. If no existing topic is relevant, see the rule set forth in post 5 below.
All posts and linked material must be in English, and posts containing only a link to an outside source without explanation will be deleted.