Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4[edit]

Notable Black Utilitarians and/or Consequentialists[edit]

I request a list of philosophers in the Consequentialist tradition who are members of the African Diaspora, including ones with Wikipedia articles and others with some academic publishing credits. Ideally, list those who are explicitly identified as such and came chronologically after J.S Mill, though this is not necessary. Mach61 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not explicitly identified as such in reliable sources and also do not self-identify as such, putting such labels on a philosopher (or anyone) qualifies as original research, not a Good Thing here. --Lambiam 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us are - as per current consensus - members of the African diaspora. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All indicators until now appear rather negative. After looking up Wikipedia categories you will otherwise find: "Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, care ethics is found to have affinities with moral perspectives such as African ethics, Confucian ethics, .." (Care Ethics ). Consequentialist is commonly equated with "Kantian" in such matters. So an apparently fundamental disparity, and not an isolated opinion, it is also put into perpective here in Black Radical Kantianism. Unless I'm too optimistic peer reviewed Res Philosophica Black Radical Kantianism shouldn't be forgeting to mention the notable references to the condition, even though those were not radical, thus I'm inclined to conclude there are none. There are, otherwise, people such as the Dr Silas Modiri Molema who may have been using the word utilitarian once in their argumentation, I'm reading it in its first Wiktionary sense wikt:utilitarian as the term was associated with "morality", not with "ethics", originally. Note that maximisation can be easily contrasted with liberation [1], [2]. --Askedonty (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Consequentialist is commonly equated with 'Kantian' in such matters." That directly contradicts the quote preceding it. Kant is thoroughly anti-consequentialist. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see them above together contrasted against care ethics. Rule consequentialism I think is what is contrasted to Kant’s deontological ethics. --Askedonty (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote contrasts care ethics to both deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, but as a third option. For Kant consequences of actions are completely irrelevant to their moral status. From the beginning of the first section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:

"Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a Good Will."

[...]

"A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favour of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations. Even if it should happen that, owing to special disfavour of fortune, or the niggardly provision of a step-motherly nature, this will should wholly lack power to accomplish its purpose, if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing, and there should remain only the good will (not, to be sure, a mere wish, but the summoning of all means in our power), then, like a jewel, it would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its whole value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can neither add nor take away anything from this value. It would be, as it were, only the setting to enable us to handle it the more conveniently in common commerce, or to attract to it the attention of those who are not yet connoisseurs, but not to recommend it to true connoisseurs, or to determine its value."[3]

Kant famously even goes as far as saying that you have to return a weapon to a person who gave it to you for safe-keeping even if that person is completely out of their mind and about to go killing people. Or in another example, where someone is seeking sanctuary with you, when their persecutors come asking where they are you have to tell them, basically making you an accessory to murder. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being ignorant of Kant state of mind at that point, I'll hazard it can be very easy to build other paradoxes and reverse the logic of any interpretation at this point. For example were there is shininess, there could arise blindness too. At any rate, the question was already disputed in the past and remains so, as far as I can see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Also [13]. --Askedonty (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.

Alumni Oxonienses citation of "Robinson"[edit]

A number of entries in the Alumni Oxonienses (e.g. this one [14]) cite a source called "Robinson". Who/what is this Robinson source? Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a Rev J. C. Robinson mentioned in the preface as editing the register of Merchant Taylors' School (I assume the London one). Your example came from Middlesex, and London is in Middlesex. Perhaps page 241 of whatever work "Robinson" is will tell you what it said about him in that school register. In fact here it is: A register of the scholars admitted into Merchant Taylors' School : from A. D. 1562 to 1874. (And here is Volume 2.) The information given in the case of the example is Henry Scotland, (footnote: Member of the Legislative Council, New Zealand) b. ii July, 1821, s. of George and Sarah, barrister, Harpur Street. Card Zero (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you, very helpful. Muzilon (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limits before the speedometer[edit]

The first speedometer was patented in 1888, and reportedly they started to be available as options in the early 20th century.

The first speed limit was set by the Locomotive Act of 1861. The famous arrests of Ulysses S. Grant for speeding are from 1866 and 1872.

How were drivers since 1861, and Grant in particular, expected to know when to slow down, decades before the availability of the speedometer? 147.234.72.52 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit enforcement, section History, notes The act required a man with a red flag to walk 60 yards (55 m) ahead ... The speed limit was effectively redundant as vehicle speeds could not exceed the speed at which a person could walk. Card Zero (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Position two officers on a road, 50 yards from each other. The first officer raises a flag when a mechanically propelled vehicle passes by, whereupon the second officer starts a stopwatch and stops it on the arrival of the vehicle. If the elapsed time was less than 20 seconds, the vehicle exceeded a speed of 5 mph. --Lambiam 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British police speed traps were still conducted this way in the 1960s, although the mode of communication had moved on. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to VASCAR, even now some speed traps are still done in a somewhat similar manner albeit only requiring one observer. Most automated systems have tended to use an almost instantaneous speed using on device at almost a single point. But especially with Automatic number plate recognition, there's a move back to average speed measurements using 2 cameras between fixed points with known distances e.g. SPECS (speed camera) in the UK, in large part to deal with the tendency of people to slow down where they know there's a camera but drive faster elsewhere. Although I think these tend to take the speeds over a far greater distance then the police generally did manually. (AFAIK, they also rely on precisely synchronised clocks more than real time communication.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horse gait also indicates some methods that police officers could have used in cases like Grant's, which involved horse drawn carriages. Horses naturally, without training, have four different gaits, which are walk, trot, canter and gallop, in order of increasing speed. A horse that was walking on city streets was not breaking 19th century speed limits. A horse in a full gallop almost certainly was. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, or at least more sense than a horse rider memorizing landmark distances and continually consulting a stopwatch. Trying to find out about pre-automobile speed limits, I found one author saying that Grant promised "to stick to the speed limit in future", which is vague, and another claim that the town marshal in Tuscon, Arizona, enforced a speed limit of 5 miles per hour for horses - but this is part of a "strange story and amazing fact" in which the marshal stopped a self-appointed judge, who then fined himself. Speed limit has a reference for the first numeric speed limit for automobiles, but leaves the question of a numeric speed limit for horses unanswered. In the history section however it mentions laws about "riding at a gallop" and the unspecific "furious driving", and that sounds more practical. Card Zero (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first recorded instance of a speed trap can be traced back to the early 20th century in the United Kingdom. Picture this: it’s 1896, and Walter Arnold is cruising through Paddock Wood, Kent, in his horseless carriage, breaking the dizzying speed limit of 2 mph. However, little did he know that a vigilant police officer on a bicycle was observing his mischievous behaviour, armed with nothing more than a stopwatch. [15]

Presumably, the policeman was able to keep up with the speeding vehicle on his bicycle. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same case is described in more detail here. The fine for speeding was one shilling (5 new pence) although there were two other related fines and costs. Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He must have been travelling faster than the speed of light if 1896 was part of the 20th century. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, in all versions of the story, Grant's violations are referred to as speeding rather than galloping; and he was known to keep and drive exceptionally fast horses, so he might be able to exceed the speed limit without galloping.

Where could one find the traffic code which was in effect in DC in 1866-1872, in order to see exactly how Grant's violation was defined? 147.234.72.52 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to find that, but did find a statute of 1892:

Sect. 12: That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to ride or drive any animal of the horse kind in or on any street , avenue , or alley of the cities of Washington or Georgetown at a rate of speed exceeding eight miles per hour, nor cause any such animal to turn any corner within the said cities at a rate of speed exceeding four miles per hour.

The Washington Law Reporter: Volume 20 (1893) p. 662

A brisk walking speed is 4 mph. while a middle-aged jogger (such as myself) would consider 8 mph a steady pace, so I suppose it would be a simple matter for a policeman on foot to tell if that were being exceded by any reasonable margin. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a trot, a horse-drawn carriage will go around 8-10 MPH. At a walk, a horse-drawn carriage will go about 2-4 MPH... When at the canter, a horse-drawn carriage goes approximately 10-15 MPH. At the gallop, the speed will be around 18-25 MPH. [16] Alansplodge (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically correct?[edit]

We are working on an obituary. There is a difference of opinion over whether the following (part of a) sentence is grammatically correct or not - thanks if anyone can provide definitive information on whether and how this sentence is grammatically correct or not correct. Specifically, 'pulling an endless appearance of weeds': "...afternoons occupied pulling an endless appearance of weeds that he could never seem to conquer (in later years this devolved to planning to pull weeds)." 65.59.235.138 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no grammatical issues. But as written he pulled an appearance of weeds. I assume that he actually pulled weeds. The difference is that in the first case there are no actual weeds. These could work instead:

"pulling an apparently endless amount of weeds"

"apparently endlessly pulling weeds"

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"pulling endlessly appearing weeds" or completely re-write it. MinorProphet (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all appearances are the illusory intangible kind, only mainly apparitions. I think it makes sense as is. Sorry for your loss. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Seem to" may be somewhat superfluous, given the parenthetical, but also makes his plight seem less tragic. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the "pulling endlessly appearing weeds" wording. As a teenager, I worked as a dishwasher in three different restaurants, where my job was "washing endlessly appearing dirty dishes". Now, I am a Wikipedia administrator, where much of what I do is "blocking endlessly appearing self-promoters". Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See, I grew up on "the other side", pushing weed on a seemingly (but not actually) endless stream of frustrated menial workers. Might have something to do with my tolerance for somewhat wacky writing, from landscaper lingo to pipefitter prose. Now I work me the night shift, where I pull and pull and pull till it hurts (the word "however", that is). Anyway, I'm not tooting my own horn or anything. Your way works just fine! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thanks for your comment, I think the phrase you endorse will win out and end the conflict, and I appreciate what you do to block endlessly appearing self-promoters. Indeed. Cheers . 65.59.235.138 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an uncommon phrase if it weren't for the use of "appearance." Searching texts, I find it commonly stated as "an endless scourge of weeds." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vast tracts of poetry would have to be rewritten if all texts had to conform to "the rules". The only possible quibble with "pulling an endless appearance of weeds" is that, as Random person no 362478479 said above, one does not pull an appearance, but pulls actual weeds. But so what! Where does it say that precise literality must always apply? It's fine for its purpose, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the style of writing appropriate to poetry is vastly broader and welcoming of innovative phrasing than the semi-formal style called for when writing most obituaries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What must actual weeds do before any observer even plans to pull them but appear? By appearing, they make an appearance. After someone pulls them, they no longer appear, thus their appearance (the appearance of weeds) is indeed pulled, along with their sneaking feeling, recurrent aroma and incessant rustling sound (for a while, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the ambiguity of appearance, which carries distracting ideas about disguises and phantoms. I read it as a collective noun. I suggest substituting the word reappearance. (I reason that there are no idioms such as false reappearance, outward reappearance, leather-effect reappearance, etc., to cause any ambiguity.) Card Zero (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that "appearance" is ambiguous. The way it is being used here is similar to stating something like "Joe made an appearance at the gala last night." That means that Joe physically arrived and was seen. But, it goes further. It implies that he didn't want to be there and he left as quickly as possible. I doubt that weeds make an appearance in a garden just to be seen and then try to find a way to make a quick exit. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Joe is a disembodied ghost, who made a spiritual appearance, wanting very much to be seen. --Lambiam 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds are crafty. The Biblical "tares" look just like wheat, so if the farmer tried to uproot them he would destroy his crop. He has to wait till harvest, when the tops of the tares turn black and the tops of the wheat ears turn another colour. Then it's easy. 2A02:C7B:117:5200:9921:6A9E:88E6:D35 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Make" is shifty. Weeds don't do what Jetset Joe does. But they do bring sight into being through their formation/alteration of material (classic 1A). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]