Border crises

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:08 pm
Not really. It's up to logic.
Which one?
Formal logic.

Skepdick
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:11 pm
Formal logic.
Yes. Formal logic.

WHICH ONE?

Classical? Intuitionistic? Minimal? Dialetheic? Linear? Temporal?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:18 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:11 pm
Formal logic.
Yes. Formal logic.
WHICH ONE?
Basic Aristotelian. Two premises, one conclusion. Law of Non-Contradiction. Law of Excluded Middle. All apply here.

Skepdick
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:18 pm
Basic Aristotelian. Two premises, one conclusion. Law of Non-Contradiction. Law of Excluded Middle. All apply here.
Why that one and not the others?

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
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.
With respect for you and your arguments, I agree with the definition of “absolute” as you have presented so eloquently.

As such, I must agree with you in toto and abandon my previous position.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Skep

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:21 pm

one more time, with feeling...

You wrote: "What 'objective' means to a scientist is simply 'supported by vast amounts of evidence'."

Indeed.

Vast amounts of evidence support the fact 'fire burns'. Not only that, but vast amounts of evidence support the fact 'fire burns everywhere on earth (where conditions are appropriate for fire to exist), and -- if Reality works the same way there -- on the other side of the universe'.

Seems to me: 'a person owns himself' is equally true anywhere and any time, and is equally supported by vast amounts of evidence.

So: objectively (and morally) 'a person owns himself' is fact, is true, yeah?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:18 pm
Basic Aristotelian. Two premises, one conclusion. Law of Non-Contradiction. Law of Excluded Middle. All apply here.
Why that one and not the others?
"Not wrong" either means "right," or it doesn't. (Law of Excluded Middle)
Something that is "not wrong" is "right". (Law of Non-Contradiction)
That's what we were discussing, that that's what's relevant to the question we were discussing.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:26 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:20 pm
With respect for you and your arguments, I agree with the definition of “absolute” as you have presented so eloquently.

As such, I must agree with you in toto and abandon my previous position.
I'm astonished and impressed.

Imagine...a person is here to actually do what philosophy is supposed to do...to make us wiser. And (s)he has the integrity and common sense to change an opinion when circumstances warrant it? Wow.

Too bad such experiences are not more common here. We'd get a lot more done, and we'd all be better for it.

I tip my hat to you.

Skepdick
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:23 pm
"Not wrong" either means "right," or it doesn't. (Law of Excluded Middle)
Something that is "not wrong" is "right". (Law of Non-Contradiction)
That's what we were discussing, that that's what's relevant to the question we were discussing.
I am perfectly familiar with the laws of Classical Logic, thank you. It's not a logic I subscribe to, but you do so lets move forward....

I made an argument that God designed humans to recognize right and wrong. And if you concede that then you'll also have to concede that X becoming (NOT being) global means X is not wrong.

The logic you've chosen further mandates you to interpret 'not wrong' as right.

What else is left to say here? All that remains to be seen is whether you have "the integrity and common sense to change your opinion when circumstances warrant it".
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:44 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
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.
With respect for you and your arguments, I agree with the definition of “absolute” as you have presented so eloquently.

As such, I must agree with you in toto and abandon my previous position.
BTW, of the 16 definitions listed by MW for “absolute “, only one allows for any exception (“free or relatively free from mixture”). The other 15 definitions are not conditional and do not permit any variables.

If numbers make right, as you’ve claimed, then circumstancial variations do not apply.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:41 pm
...you'll also have to concede that X becoming (NOT being) global means X is not wrong.
No, that actually doesn't actually fit, logically speaking.

What we'd have to say is that "X becoming global" has nothing to do with whether or not X is right or wrong. And that's because the former statement, "X is becoming global" is an empirical observation (a "fact," if you will), and "X is not wrong" is a moral claim (or "value," if you will).

And, as Hume so cleverly pointed out, there is no logical connection between an empirical observation and an attached value judgment.

This can be easily demonstrated: Nazism, or cannibalism, or pedophelia, if any of these were becoming global, would not thereby be becoming "right."

Skepdick
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:11 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:41 pm
...you'll also have to concede that X becoming (NOT being) global means X is not wrong.
No, that actually doesn't actually fit, logically speaking.

What we'd have to say is that "X becoming global" has nothing to do with whether or not X is right or wrong. And that's because the former statement, "X is becoming global" is an empirical observation (a "fact," if you will), and "X is not wrong" is a moral claim (or "value," if you will).

And, as Hume so cleverly pointed out, there is no logical connection between an empirical observation and an attached value judgment.
Now now. It seems to me that you hold Hume to a higher regard than you hold your God? Choose an authority and stick to it.

Like a good constructivist, I will be sure to tailor-make an argument that is easy to swallow whichever way you go...

Do you accept or reject the premise: God designed humans to recognize right and wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:11 pm
This can be easily demonstrated: Nazism, or cannibalism, or pedophelia, if any of these were becoming global, would not thereby be becoming "right."
You continue to strawman me.

Do you think God's creation, the creation designed to recognize right and wrong would allow Nazism, canibalism or paedophilia to become global?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:16 pm
Now now. It seems to me that you hold Hume to a higher regard than you hold your God? Choose an authority and stick to it.
I'm not appealing to authority...just logic.

So maybe we can distill this down: you say you know "right" or "not wrong" by the following:

1 By its "becoming global".

2. By your personal intuition.

3. By social construction

Have I summarized your views fairly? Would you like to add something?

Skepdick
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:23 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:16 pm
Now now. It seems to me that you hold Hume to a higher regard than you hold your God? Choose an authority and stick to it.
I'm not appealing to authority...just logic.

You are appealing to the authority of logic. By giving logic the final word in deciding which arguments should be accepted - you have surrendered your reason to logic.

I am not holding that against you. I am only using it against you (but that shouldn't matter - because you seem like a man of conviction).

Back to the question: Do you accept or reject the premise: God designed humans to recognize right and wrong.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:29 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:26 pm
you seem like a man of conviction
Thank you...I think.

Did I get your view correct? Would you like to modify my summary?

And I will be happy to talk about my views once I have some fair sense of what yours are. But I still am not quite sure I've understood you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests