Philosophy Now Forum

So why are you back if you're so comfortable with how you defended your position? You think you've undermined my KSM argument? Mmmmkay. So now it's out there for all to see. Great job. People can go read your arguments to see for themselves what an awesome job you did. Be satisfied with this victory you're claiming. I know I am.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You find that sunset beautiful. I don't. I prefer more dramatic sunsets - give me flaming reds, dazzling oranges! The subtle pink and purple hues you find beautiful, I find bland.

Any given sunset is not beautiful in and of itself. And that remains true whether one person finds it beautiful or if everyone does.

If so, the question "Is this sunset beautiful?" is absurd. It reveals a basic misunderstanding of what beauty is. It (mistakenly) assumes that the beauty resides in the sunset, rather than in the beholder. A better question would be "Do you find this sunset beautiful?"

I suspect our language contributes to this mistake. We talk about "that beautiful sunset" as if the beauty really does reside in the sunset itself. And if we're not careful, we start to give our own valuations more weight than they deserve. We start thinking the sunset really is beautiful, and once we think along those lines we'll be ready to argue with people who disagree with us...

So anyway, in this respect, I can't see any substantial difference between aesthetic valuations and moral valuations. How is arguing that waterboarding KMS is moral any different to arguing that a particular sunset is beautiful?

I thought that throwing an insult at someone was a classical example of an ad hominem attack.
Some people here seem to argue that this is not so.



Is an ad hominem attack only when you try to expose hidden truths about someone´s personality ?

A big obstacle to investigating the whole question of the relationship between insults and philosophy is that at the moment insults are mentioned, the conversation becomes a distracting Christian morality play about who is right or wrong, good or bad etc.

Thus, it seems the inquiry must begin by acknowledging that each poster has the right to type whatever they want. Only Rick Lewis the forum owner has a right which supersedes ours.

The beauty of the forum environment is that each reader is fully in control of their own experience, so if words or posters are found offensive, the reader can easily avoid them.

So, to sidestep the usual distractions, we must acknowledge each poster's rights, and we must each take responsibility for our own reading experience. Surrendering the very appealing fantasy victim pose is the price for clarity on this topic.

If we wish to understand this behavior, we should first set aside an agenda of trying to change the behavior.

It seems absurd to me to not acknowledge that the experience of conflict is the honey which entices many of us (not all) to participate here. Isn't philosophy a disciplined effort to understand reality?

It seems a further absurdity to declare that not investigating why we do what we do, why we say what we say, is somehow a sign of good philosophy. Such a weak assertion deserves a good debunking.

Let's say I'm dancing naked in my front yard. You walk up and ask, hey friend, why are you dancing naked? My reply is, I have no idea. Shall we declare me brilliant now?

Well, ok, ok, if I was dancing naked instead of typing up nerdy long winded sermons, perhaps that would be brilliant.

I'm here stating the fact that it's not.

Here's the Wiki definition (it's good enough for our purpose): "An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

So, an ad hominem fallacy is not just saying something against a person (e.g. insulting him), but saying it as an attempt to undermine his argument. When someone gives reasons for why he believes something, and you offer a psychological motivation as if this -- and not the reasons given -- better explained, or could only explain, why he believes it, then you're trying to undermine the reasons he gave. Instead, the "real" reason for why he believes what he does, you're saying, must be because of this psychological motivation you're attributing to him. That is a classic example of an ad hominem.

When you give poor reasoning for something you believe, and I explain why it's poor, then I'm undermining our argument by taking on your premises, not by insulting you. That's obviously not an ad hominem. If I go on to call you an idiot, then the insult isn't offered as something meant to undermine your reasons, because that work is done. So my insult is no ad hominem...as it isn't attempt to undermine your premises/reasons/arguments.

This applies to all the ad hominems. Sometimes they're relevant and sometimes they're not. A classic example is a slippery slope. If you argue that from one thing it'll lead to another and yet another and finally to some undesirable event, it's not a fallacy if you give good reason to think such a slide would happen. It is a fallacy if there's little reason to think such a slide would happen. Only the latter is a slippery slope fallacy. But a slippery slope is not in itself a fallacy.

Yeah, the ones who know what they're talking about. The others obviously don't.

This stupid topic is for another thread. Start your own thread. Stop cluttering a waterboarding thread with this drivel.

Sorry, philosophy doesn't work this way, buddy. I can't tell if you're championing a form of ethical subjectivism or emotivism. Either way, you can't just give possibly the worst argument ever in favor of whatever you're claiming and expect me to argue against it.

You have a counter-intuitive meta-ethical theory. It's not my job to argue why it's wrong. It's your job to make your view seem plausible. Ethical Subjectivism and the Boo-Hurrah theory have been demolished in philosophy, but I guess you're its new (poor) champion? Fine, go ahead, argue for whatever it is you're arguing for. But at least argue for it.

Oh, golly, there's is no right or wrong when it comes to which is better, vanilla ice-cream or chocolate ice-cream; therefore ethical judgments aren't propositional.

Make your theory seem plausible. Otherwise, you're just rattling off theories you've heard of and challenging me to defeat them. Where's the part where you do philosophy?

Nope. I won't. Here's why.

You've declared a standard of doing whatever is in our nature, with proud disregard for what others might think of it.

I don't actually disagree with this standard, assuming we man up and accept the consequences of being ourselves in such an honest manner.

So, you can count on me not doing whatever you tell me to do. Often I will do the opposite of whatever you tell me to do, because like you, I am stubborn, bullheaded, and independent.

Here's something you won't like, just to keep the ball rolling. You're afraid of me, or more specifically, the direction I'm trying to steer the conversation.

Yes, yes, I know, I know, you will now puff out your chest and make a bunch of masculine tough guy statements. Go ahead, I don't mind. Here, I'll sing along with you....We're in the Marine Corp now, la de da da da da etc.

It's all a big pose dude. A pose designed to hide yourself from yourself.

You've come here to do some rock n roll hard partying, and all I'm doing is joining you at the keg. Let's see what you're made of tough guy.

So your response to my Waterboarding KSM argument is to change the topic?

Ha ha ha. Oh no, I'm now losing this argument! How shall I undermine your non-argument? Besides your lie about whatever it is you say I advocate or condone, what you fail to realize -- along with much else -- is that the force behind an argument doesn't just go away or dissipate because you won't talk about it. My argument is compelling no matter what you do or don't do. So, ignore it all you like. Less carping for me to waste time on.

I applaud your new tactic. I wish more people would pursue it. My argument for waterboarding KSM is so compelling that my opponents are forced to adopt childish antics to hijack the thread. Case closed. You have conceded.

I AM talking about water boarding.

I'm just talking about water boarding you instead of KSM.

You've been acting like a terrorist here on the forum, or so some may have concluded.

Is it morally permissible to water board you rhetorically?

I'm attempting to use your own philosophy to address this question. Your philosophy seems to be that being true to one's own nature, and letting the chips fall where they may, is the clear minded honest choice. I tend to agree with this analysis.

You've declared your nature to be that of a jerk, and I have as well. So here we are, being jerks.

How's it working out for ya, you pathetic little cowardly weiner dog?

LOL. I have been acting like a terrorist here! Sorry, how are you typing without your head? Oh wait, you always do that.

Clever little cutesy quips are a well known defense mechanism.

Again, like most of us here, you are obsessed with rank, and the clever little cutesy quip is just another method of reaching for higher rank.

When you're ready to be so brilliant as to investigate why you do what you do, lemme know. I won't hold my breath.

Pop Psychology 101.

You're free to confess whatever you like about yourself. Okay, we go it: you are obsessed with where you rank in this forum. Not that anyone was interested, but I'm glad you could get that off your chest.

You talk like you control this thread. I have no interest in discussing anything philosophical with you. You've proven your incompetence, and I'm not into pro bono tutoring. I'm here to discuss the moral permissibility of waterboarding KSM with any non-moron with an interest. Since that disqualifies you, it's a good idea not to hold you breath. By the way, quips are all you merit: you do not do philosophy.

Ok, thanks for that. They're my own thoughts by the way, I'm not rattling off some second-hand theory, although why that's even an issue is perplexing. Anyway, I've discovered that other people have thought along the same lines... apparently I'm a non-cognitivist, although not necessarily the "boo/hurrah!" kind. You say this view has been demolished. Strong words, must be one hell of a compelling argument. Which argument against non-cognitivism do you think has done this demolition job?

Hey, sorry, I think I came off too harsh. Are you sure yours is a non-cognitivist ethics? After all, cognitive sentences are fact-independent and thus have no truth-value. It wasn't clear that this was what you were going for.

Blackburn is the most contemporary advocate of this theory in ethics. Here's a good article on it: http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/