Border crises

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:38 am
commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:28 am
I honestly thought that my last post draws us all to the conclusion that there is no objective morality.
I can't see how.

It takes that conclusion for granted, maybe...but that's different from showing the conclusion is correct and necessary.
I will try to be more explicit.
Great.

But you could start by just answering my question: what led you to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objective morality?

Assuming you're a rational person, that should also convince us too. So explaining your own process would do the job nicely.
Then something must be wrong with the following:

If morality is not absolute, it must be relative.

If morality is absolute, there can be no moral responsibility that is not applied in the same manner in every situation.

If there is a moral responsibility that is not applied in the same manner in every situation, morality is not absolute.

If a moral responsibility is applied in the same manner in only a subset of situations, it is a limited moral responsibility.

If morality is limited, it is not absolute.

It is a moral responsibility not to harm others.

In the situation where one man, Albert, is being harmed by another man, Barnaby, there is a limited exception that means that Albert, as a matter of self defense, does not have a responsibility not to harm Barnaby.

In most other situations, the responsibility not to harm others is strictly applied.

The moral responsibility not to harm others is not applied in the same manner in every situation.

There is at least one moral responsibility that is not applied in the same manner in every situation.

Morality is not absolute.

Morality is relative.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:16 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:42 pm
If what you say above represents your position, then it's one of the below, or a combination thereof:

1. Numbers make right, because whatever's more "global" is right.

2. Might makes right, because we gang up against our rivals and beat them down.
Strawman.
No, it's not a straw man. I didn't tell you what you think, I asked you which you thought and simply pointed out that neither potential answer you gave is logically good. If you've got a third alternative, let me know.
Might is required to defend that which is right.

Not relevant to this question.

We're asking what makes something right in the first place, not how it can be defended once it's already known to be right.

"Might" is clearly not the answer.

So now, you have the opportunity to say exactly what is the answer: what makes something "right"? If it's neither power nor numbers, what is it?

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:16 pm
So now, you have the opportunity to say exactly what is the answer: what makes something "right"? If it's neither power nor numbers, what is it?
Lead the way.

Tell me what makes something "good'. You must know, since you claim to know what 'goodness' is when it comes to logic.

Or, you are welcome to admit that you are using the same heuristic I am: I know it when I see it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:15 pm
Then something must be wrong with the following:

Yes, indeed it is.
If morality is not absolute, it must be relative.
Not problematic. And the inverse, also true: if it's not relative, it's absolute. That's a pure dichotomy.
If morality is absolute, there can be no moral responsibility that is not applied in the same manner in every situation.
"In every relevantly similar situation." There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases.

For example, "Thou shalt not murder" is absolute. But it does not imply "You shall not kill in defence of your family," or "You shall not kill by accident." The absence of malice and the absence of the possibility of preventing death are both what philosophy calls "excusing conditions" for the moral prohibition against killing.

So an absolute can be applicable to different circumstances without becoming "relative."
If there is a moral responsibility that is not applied in the same manner in every situation, morality is not absolute.
Here's the first "thing wrong" for which you asked.

Your assumption here is false, for two reasons. Firstly, as you can see above, to think that an absolute entails that it "must be implied in the same manner" without regard for relevant differences in situation is untrue. Secondly, whether an absolute is being "applied" is not the issue, since it is possible for human beings to fail to "apply" what they know to be the right thing to do.
If a moral responsibility is applied in the same manner in only a subset of situations, it is a limited moral responsibility.
This is the second mistake.

One can have an absolute moral responsibility, but nuance it by situation, as above. Premeditated murder is absolutely wrong. Accidental killing is only manslaughter. Defending one's family is self-defence. In all cases, let's say, a man dies; but that death is not morally condemned to the same degree. That doesn't mean that premeditated murder becomes less than absolutely wrong. And it doesn't mean that we have now become unclear on what premeditated murder is.
If morality is limited, it is not absolute.
Now you've slid the term "limited" over to mean "not absolute," instead of "able to be understood better by considering circumstance." That creates what's called an "amphiboly," which is a fallacy, a fault in logic.
It is a moral responsibility not to harm others.
From where do you acquire this certainty? What tells you it's true?

* * *

The rest of your list of premises simply repeats things we've just covered above.

Now you can see where the logic went wrong. You've understood "absolute" to mean different things: you think it means "indifferent to circumstances," or "rigidly enforced," or "devoid of excusing conditions." It means none of those things.

It simply means that, given the circumstances that define a particular act (like "murder," which is defined by deliberate killing of a human being, and by malice aforethought) the moral prohibition is absolute. It does not mean that we disregard the definitional conditions that make a thing actual "murder" in the first place.

A more subtle understanding of what an "absolute moral prohibition" is will disabuse you of this confusion.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:16 pm
So now, you have the opportunity to say exactly what is the answer: what makes something "right"? If it's neither power nor numbers, what is it?
Lead the way.
Why? I wanted your answer.

You seemed to feel I was straw-manning you, and I thought it only fair to give you the chance to tell me what you really DO believe is the answer...

Why would you decline the chance to clear your name of whatever misrepresentation you think I put on you?

Why wouldn't you want me to 'get your view right'?

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm
Why? I wanted your answer.
I gave you my answer in the first post.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm
Why wouldn't you want me to 'get your view right'?
Because you are focusing on my view, not on yours.

Once we iron out all the errors in your thinking - you'll see it as clearly as I do.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:48 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm
Why? I wanted your answer.
And that answer was...what?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm
Why wouldn't you want me to 'get your view right'?
Because you are focusing on my view, not on yours.
You accused me of "straw-manning" you. That must mean I misrepresented your view. And that must mean you know what your view is. Otherwise, how could anybody get it wrong?

I'm happy for you to "iron out my thinking," beginning with my confusion about what you actually believe on the question. To get it right, I need to know what that is.

What, in your view, makes something "right"? That's the question.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:48 pm
You accused me of "straw-manning" you.
It wasn't an accusation - it wasn't my intention to trigger you. It was a statement of fact. You misunderstood.

Try again given the feedback you received.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:48 pm
What, in your view, makes something "right"?
I can't really say.

But I can say that if an ideology becomes global and is tacitly accepted, then it's not wrong.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:48 pm
What, in your view, makes something "right"?
I can't really say.
That's plausible. Thanks for your candour.
But I can say that if an ideology becomes global and is tacitly accepted, then it's not wrong.
Well, now, that's a question of mere numbers, though, isn't it?

If it is, it's not hard to see why it's bound to be wrong.

At one time, 100% of the people on Earth (there's your "global," and perhaps your "tacitly," too) believed the world was flat. Nothing about the numbers made their belief more true. Equally, if the Nazis had won the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad, and we were now all speaking German and revering the new Fuhrer, and killing off the last of the gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, handicapped and dissenters, the fact that this had become the global practice would not go one step toward making it right, would it?

Or are you inclined to the social constructionist view, which is that literally any evil at all can become good merely by being socially-approved?

Just asking, not "straw manning" anything here.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm
Well, now, that's a question of mere numbers, though, isn't it?
That's a reductionist way of thinking. I said what I needed to say.

Might is required to defend that which is right.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm
At one time, 100% of the people on Earth (there's your "global," and perhaps your "tacitly," too) believed the world was flat. Nothing about the numbers made their belief more true.
And now 100% of us believe the world is round. Is it? Would new evidence convince you otherwise?

You are committing the anachronistic fallacy and ignoring social progress.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm
Or are you inclined to the social constructionist view, which is that literally any evil at all can become good merely by being socially-approved?
You call that 'merely'? What else is there?

I think I know what you want to hear.

God made me to recognize what's right, but didn't teach me to express it.
I imagine your God taught us all to recognize what's right. Why else would we fight the Nazis when we could join them?

It then follows, because most humans can regonize what's right (by design), then that which becomes global is not wrong.
For God's creation fights against wrongness.

It's not an position I subscribe to, but I am hoping it is a position you aren't willing to argue against, in fear of pissing off your favourite deity.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Skep

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:22 pm

"if an ideology becomes global and is tacitly accepted, then it's not wrong"

If morality is wholly subjective, a human construct, then you're right.

If, on the other hand, even a sliver of moral thought is objective, stands as true even if rejected by the bulk of folks, then you're wrong.

Me: I think moral truth is spare and simple. The core: a person owns himself. I derive this truth through self-interrogation that is: I seem to belong to me and no other, it seems natural and normal for me to self-possess and resist being possessed by others. This natural and normal inclination to self-own and to resist ownership by others seems to be present in almost every human being. It is man's nature, it seems, to assert himself as his own and to resist those who assert otherwise. I reckon this to be an objective moral truth (mebbe the only one).

So: even if the whole of the world is hoodwinked in to accepting the yoke, it don't make it right, and those few who take up arms against such a wrong are justified to do so.

More simply: it is wrong to enslave even if the slave has been hoodwinked into seeing slavery as right.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:24 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:18 pm
You are committing the anachronistic fallacy and ignoring progress.
Not at all.

I was simply pointing out that having numbers of people agree does not make a thing right, any more than it makes a thing true.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm
Or are you inclined to the social constructionist view, which is that literally any evil at all can become good merely by being socially-approved?
You call that 'merely'?

I think I know what you want to hear. [/quote]
I don't think you do, because I genuinely don't "want to hear" any particular thing. I really want to know how you find "rightness." That's all.

My goal is to let you represent yourself fairly...not to tell you what you think.
Your God made me to recognize what's right, but didn't teach me to express it.
I imagine your God taught us all to recognize what's right. Why else would we fight the Nazis when we could join them?

It then follows, because most humans can regonize what's right (by design), then that which becomes global is not wrong.
For God's creation fights against wrongness.
That's an interesting line of thought, and not one I saw coming or was looking for you to admit. I haven't hear it before. But then you also say,
It's not an position I subscribe to,
So I guess I'm not getting what I really wanted.

I was really hoping you'd have an answer, something you really believed.

Of course, that doesn't guarantee I'll agree -- maybe I won't, and I don't mind debating it -- but I have really no interest at all in arguing with you some view you don't actually hold. What would be the point?

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Skep

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:25 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:22 pm
If, on the other hand, even a sliver of moral thought is objective, stands as true even if rejected by the bulk of folks, then you're wrong.
The concept of 'objectivity' is man-made. What 'objective' means to a scientist is simply 'supported by vast amounts of evidence'.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Skep

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:25 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:22 pm
More simply: it is wrong to enslave even if the slave has been hoodwinked into seeing slavery as right.
Nicely and concisely put. I agree.

Skepdick
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:24 pm
I was simply pointing out that having numbers of people agree does not make a thing right, any more than it makes a thing true.
Why would you point such a thing out when I never alluded to it?

The flat-earth belief never BECAME global. It didn't replace any prior belief. It's simply where we started.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:10 pm
I was really hoping you'd have an answer, something you really believed.
I gave you the answer I believed in. I know it when I see it.

You insisted on an answer, so I gave you an answer you can't reject.

I am a social constructionist. I constructed an argument that shuts you up.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests