Off-topic religious debate
Patrick M. Berry
> In article <7u7f4k$khe$2...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>, ber...@aur.alcatel.com wrote:
>
> > Perhaps. But how do we know the One True Template when we see it? There are
> > a lot of religions in the world, and most of them are sure that they have the
> > right answers and everyone else is wrong.
>
> I'm going to cut to the chase, which you are getting towards, yourself.
> Ultimately, there is no such thing as a logical basis for religious belief
> nor for morality. Ultimately, one must either draw a consciously
> arbitrary limit or rely upon testimony of revelation.
Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is based on
logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
Michael T. Richter
news:7ufgo2$2rq$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com...
> Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
(non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Patrick M. Berry
> On 16 Oct 1999, Lizard wrote:
>
> > Why is acting in self-interest considered inherently immoral?
> >
> I'm not saying that it is an immoral action, but neither is is moral (I
> guess that makes it amoral).
It depends entirely on *which* moral code you're talking about. Some people
follow a code that prizes human life as a precious thing, to be preserved
and protected above all else. This would include one's own life. By this
moral code, self-interest is highly moral.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that before you can make
meaningful statements about whether anything is moral or not, you must first
establish what "moral" is.
Frank T. Sronce
Not possible to have a complete stranger with no links to you
whatsoever? Sure, I'll buy that. :-)
Kiz
-especially since presenting it as a choice automatically _creates_ a
link- if you choose to skip the hand wound, they die... That's a pretty
sturdy link, IMO. :-)
Mikel L. Matthews Jr.
: > (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
: > you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
myself and a few others are able to perform in a year. Seeing as how I
save at least 100 people a year, suffering a cut which might damage my
hand to the point where I can't save these people, and few others could,
isn't worth the cost of the lives that can be lost.
Mikel
Ghoul
--
Let us never lack the courage to dream of heroes, nor the strength to make
them real -Ghoul
There's not a word yet, for old friends who just met. --Gonzo (for Offy)
http://members.xoom.com/GhoulsLair/
"No day but today" RENT ICQ: 833484 AIM: GdftBrak
Author: Dreambound..check it out at www.dreambound.com
Bryan J. Maloney
Matthews Jr.) wrote:
> : > Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> : > (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> : > you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
> Easy. I'm a surgeon who, if I suffer a deep cut to my hand, will be
> unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
> myself and a few others are able to perform in a year. Seeing as how I
> save at least 100 people a year, suffering a cut which might damage my
> hand to the point where I can't save these people, and few others could,
> isn't worth the cost of the lives that can be lost.
Congratulations, you BLEW IT. Indeed, you got it 100% diametrically opposite!
Go re-read the query and respond to what it actually SAID.
Brett Evill
>
> : > Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> : > (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> : > you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
> Easy. I'm a surgeon who, if I suffer a deep cut to my hand, will be
> unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
> myself and a few others are able to perform in a year. Seeing as how I
> save at least 100 people a year, suffering a cut which might damage my
> hand to the point where I can't save these people, and few others could,
> isn't worth the cost of the lives that can be lost.
You are begging the question by *assuming* that saving 100 people a year
is better than saving one person right now. And while I tend to agree
with that, it is an assumption, not a conclusion of pure logic.
And while you may be a surgeon, I am not, and I don't think that Patrick
is either. Logically defend the proposition that Patrick or I ought to
suffer a deep cut on the hand rather than allow a complete stranger to
die.
Regards,
Brett Evill
dan...@flash.net
<b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
Simple. I (or patrick, or whoever) is most likely to survive in an
environment in which other people are willing to help me. To this end, I
tend to behaviors which encourage these same behaviors in others. In other
words, I take the cut because by doing this, I save the other person's
life, who understands that I just saved his life, and so given the same
choice he would probably take the cut himself rather than let another
person die. It has nothing to do with morality. By encouraging this
behavior in others (by example), I increase the chances that someone would
make the same decision if it was my life in the balance. And ensuring my
own livelihood is logical, isn't it?
Psycho560 aka Grunther aka Khazid the Sane
Brett Evill
>
> >
> Simple. I (or patrick, or whoever) is most likely to survive in an
> environment in which other people are willing to help me. To this end, I
> tend to behaviors which encourage these same behaviors in others. In other
> words, I take the cut because by doing this, I save the other person's
> life, who understands that I just saved his life, and so given the same
> choice he would probably take the cut himself rather than let another
> person die. It has nothing to do with morality. By encouraging this
> behavior in others (by example), I increase the chances that someone would
> make the same decision if it was my life in the balance.
You have assumed that your example will encourage altruism in witnesses.
And you have assumed that there is likely to be a circumstance in which
an altruistic act by a person following your example will provide an
impact on your survival that is worth the risk.
Now, I am not saying that these things are untrue. I am saying that a
proof which depends on them is not pure logic.
> And ensuring my own livelihood is logical, isn't it?
No, I am afraid it is not. It is sensible, It is rational. But it isn't
itself logical. It is an axiom, an assumption. Not one I disagree with,
but it is neither one of the tenets of formal logic nor derivable from
them.
The point is that logic is free of content. It is a set of rules for
deriving deductions from axioms. The only things that can be proved by
pure logic are propositions about the logical relationships of
propositions, such as "for all propositions A and B, (A and not A)
implies B". For any substantive deduction you need substantive axioms.
These cannot be derived by logic alone. The have to be provided by some
other process, such as (the preferrable one) observation.
*Proofs* may be logical or illogical. Substantive propositions can only
be true or untrue, proven or unproven, observed or unobserved.
Whenever anyone asks you to prove something substantive by logic alone,
don't swing. You can't win. And similarly, never expect anyone to
provide a purely logical proof of anything substantive, because to do so
is impossible in principle.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Michael T. Richter
news:danzer-ya0230600...@news.flash.net...
> Simple. I (or patrick, or whoever) is most likely to survive in an
> environment in which other people are willing to help me.
This means that you should convince EVERYBODY ELSE to be cooperative. It
doesn't in any way logically suggest that you need to be. In the Prisoner's
Dilemma, the best payoff is for you to be the wolf to everybody else's
sheep.
> To this end, I tend to behaviors which encourage these same
> behaviors in others. In other words, I take the cut because by
> doing this, I save the other person's life, who understands
> that I just saved his life,
How? I specifically stipulated that the person has no connections to you
*WHATSOEVER*. There is absolutely *NO* *WAY* for this person to know that
you've granted him continued assistance.
> By encouraging this behavior in others (by example),
But since there's no opportunity to encourage this behaviour, your argument
falls down.
Michael T. Richter
news:JYNO3.179$Ak5.59@firefly...
>:> Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
>:> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links
to
>:> you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
> Easy. I'm a surgeon who, if I suffer a deep cut to my hand, will be
> unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
> myself and a few others are able to perform in a year.
You are a surgeon? Unlikely.
Brian Stewart
>
> Mikel L. Matthews Jr. <gh...@prairienet.org> wrote in message
> news:JYNO3.179$Ak5.59@firefly...
> >:> Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> >:> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links
> to
> >:> you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
>
> > Easy. I'm a surgeon who, if I suffer a deep cut to my hand, will be
> > unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
> > myself and a few others are able to perform in a year.
>
> You are a surgeon? Unlikely.
>
"I'm not a surgeon, but I play one in C-o-C?" :-)
BAS ("Oh, all right-- so he wasn't a surgeon, he was an employee of the
Dept. of Energy who was selling secrets to the Soviets and disappeared
at the end of the game session, that's close enough, isn't it?")
> "get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I had one of these once, but it broke. Do you know where I could get
another? :-)
Michael T. Richter
news:380C97...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>> "get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
> I had one of these once, but it broke. Do you know where I could
> get another? :-)
A lot of philosophy majors and computer geeks seem to not be using their
own. Maybe you could enter some kind of lend-lease arrangement with them?
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
Brian Stewart
>
> Brian Stewart <bast...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:380C97...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
> >> "get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
>
> > I had one of these once, but it broke. Do you know where I could
> > get another? :-)
>
> A lot of philosophy majors and computer geeks seem to not be using their
> own. Maybe you could enter some kind of lend-lease arrangement with them?
The only one I know locally who wants to get rid of his has one I don't
want! Maybe I should go to e-bay?
BAS
Patrick M. Berry
> Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:7ufgo2$2rq$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com...
> > Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> > based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
>
> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
1. My own chances of survival are enhanced if the society I live in is one in
which people are willing to accept some personal risk in order to rescue
others from life-threatening situations. I want to promote and maintain
that sort of culture, and one of the ways to do so is by example.
2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I stand by and
watch a person die when I could save them, I will betray my own values and
do myself harm. Not physical harm, but harm nonetheless.
3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return the favor someday.
However unlikely this is, it's a valid consideration.
4. In some jurisdictions, failure to try to save people in an emergency is a
crime. If I were to do nothing, I could be tried, convicted, and punished.
Your challenge could be rephrased as follows: Logically defend the position that
it is better that you suffer a (non-lethal) puncture wound upon your arm than a
complete stranger with no links to you whatsoever bleed to death. And yet I
have donated gallons of blood. I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
All of my responses can be summarized by the following statement: There *are*
no strangers with no links to me whatsoever.
Patrick M. Berry
> In article <JYNO3.179$Ak5.59@firefly>, gh...@prairienet.org (Mikel L.
> Matthews Jr.) wrote:
>
> > : > (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> > : > you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
> > unable to perform the delicate and highly technical transplants that only
> > save at least 100 people a year, suffering a cut which might damage my
> > hand to the point where I can't save these people, and few others could,
> > isn't worth the cost of the lives that can be lost.
>
>
> Go re-read the query and respond to what it actually SAID.
How about this: If he operates on people and saves their lives, he can earn
a lot of money. But working with scalpels carries the risk of cutting your
hand by accident. If he decides to give up being a surgeon to avoid this
risk, he will suffer financially.
This may sound cold and calculating, but consider the *reason* that surgeons
are well paid. Human life is valuable, and we as a society are willing to
pay a person handsomely to develop the skills and experience to do it.
Michael T. Richter
>>>> "get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
>>> I had one of these once, but it broke. Do you know where
>>> I could get another? :-)
>> A lot of philosophy majors and computer geeks seem to not
>> be using their own. Maybe you could enter some kind of
>> lend-lease arrangement with them?
> The only one I know locally who wants to get rid of his has
> one I don't want! Maybe I should go to e-bay?
Yeah, that's probably a good bet. I'll warn you against using any kind of
time-sharing deal, though. I've got one of those, and the only time I get
to use the life is during "off" times like posting to Usenet.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
Michael T. Richter
>>> Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
>>> based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
>> Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
>> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no
>> links to you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
> 1. My own chances of survival are enhanced if the society I live in
> is one in which people are willing to accept some personal risk in
> order to rescue others from life-threatening situations. I want to
> promote and maintain that sort of culture, and one of the ways to do
> so is by example.
Logical flaws:
1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you describe
enhances your survival.
2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
3) Your argument assumes that your choice will have an audience. This is
not stated in the conditions and, indeed, the direct opposite is alluded to:
"no links to you whatsoever".
4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of "enhanced
chances of survival") situation of having everybody else in society work for
the common good and you working solely for your own benefit.
> 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I stand
> by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will betray my own
> values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but harm nonetheless.
Logical flaw:
1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted axioms.
The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the position cited.
> 3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return the favor
> someday. However unlikely this is, it's a valid consideration.
Logical flaw:
1) The consideration is explicitly made invalid by the language "no links to
you whatsoever". A link of favours across time is a link. It is
specifically exempted from the problem domain.
> 4. In some jurisdictions, failure to try to save people in an emergency
> is a crime. If I were to do nothing, I could be tried, convicted, and
> punished.
Logical flaw:
1) You have added conditions to the scenario which were not present. "No
links to you whatsoever." No emergency situation was mentioned. No
jurisdiction was mentioned.
> I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
Your belief is contrafactual. Your reasons may be reasonable, but they are
not logical. They cannot be.
> All of my responses can be summarized by the following statement:
> There *are* no strangers with no links to me whatsoever.
The specific language of the scenario says there is one. Modifying the
scenario to suit your axioms is not logical. It may be true. It may be
reasonable. It is not logical.
Tim Mott
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:kV1P3.392$%36....@198.235.216.4...
> Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:7ui7hg$dd3$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com...
> >>> Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> >>> based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
>
> >> Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> >> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no
> >> links to you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
>
> > 1. My own chances of survival are enhanced if the society I live in
> > is one in which people are willing to accept some personal risk in
> > order to rescue others from life-threatening situations. I want to
> > promote and maintain that sort of culture, and one of the ways to do
> > so is by example.
>
> Logical flaws:
> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you describe
> enhances your survival.
Clearly, such a society does enhance his survival if the people therein are
willing to rescue him from danger or in other ways keep him alive.
> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead. It is the nature of life
to
be self-preserving. As for his survival in particular, it is likely that he
benefits his society, and that is probably good, but if you want to get
anal,
sure, you can't prove it.
> 3) Your argument assumes that your choice will have an audience. This is
> not stated in the conditions and, indeed, the direct opposite is alluded
to:
> "no links to you whatsoever".
No, it does not assume that. In most cases, rescuing someone means that
the person rescued is an "audience", and there could be others in the
audience;
however, this is not always the case. If there -is- an audience, he would
like to
be a good example for them. If there isn't, he obviously can't. In both
cases, though,
he is helping to maintain a society "in which people are willing to accept
some
personal risk in order to rescue others from life-threatening situations".
> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
Perhaps he is, but I don't see a problem with this. Does he have to prove
-everthing- that he writes?? Animals, particularly humans, have been
learning by example for thousands of years. It is not the only way of
learning,
but it is a crucial one.
> 5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of "enhanced
> chances of survival") situation of having everybody else in society work
for
> the common good and you working solely for your own benefit.
And you are assuming that (a) he hasn't considered it and rejected it (how
do you know he's ignoring it?) and (b) that working for one's own benefit is
"clearly superior". Consider the categorical imperative.
> > 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I stand
> > by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will betray my own
> > values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but harm nonetheless.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted axioms.
> The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the position cited.
If his ethical code is as above, then it is logical for him to help people.
> > 3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return the favor
> > someday. However unlikely this is, it's a valid consideration.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) The consideration is explicitly made invalid by the language "no links
to
> you whatsoever". A link of favours across time is a link. It is
> specifically exempted from the problem domain.
No, it isn't. The problem implies that the stranger has no links to him at
the
present (although this is impossible). If the implication was that the
stranger
will never have any link to him, then this should have been clearly stated;
also,
this implies that the stranger will never have any links to anyone else on
the
planet, and therefore is not on this planet or is on this planet but will
never be
known about (nor will any of his works). I will not talk about the former
case, but
if the latter is true, then one could argue that his death is
inconsequential, relative
to every other person on this planet, since he never has nor will have any
effect
whatsoever upon anyone else. Of course, this assumes that essentially every
person on the planet is connected in some way.
> > 4. In some jurisdictions, failure to try to save people in an emergency
> > is a crime. If I were to do nothing, I could be tried, convicted, and
> > punished.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) You have added conditions to the scenario which were not present. "No
> links to you whatsoever." No emergency situation was mentioned. No
> jurisdiction was mentioned.
However, it may or may not be recognized by others (the original statement
is unclear
on this point) that it was his decision to have the stranger die instead of
having
his hand cut.
> > I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
>
> Your belief is contrafactual. Your reasons may be reasonable, but they
are
> not logical. They cannot be.
His reasons are certainly more logical than your "logic".
> > All of my responses can be summarized by the following statement:
> > There *are* no strangers with no links to me whatsoever.
>
> The specific language of the scenario says there is one. Modifying the
> scenario to suit your axioms is not logical. It may be true. It may be
> reasonable. It is not logical.
I confess I must agree that this last statement of his does not add to a
logical argument according to the original question.
Tim
Michael T. Richter
>> Logical flaws:
>> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you
>> describe enhances your survival.
> Clearly, such a society does enhance his survival if the people
> therein are willing to rescue him from danger or in other ways keep
> him alive.
There is a difference between a statement being true (or rational) and a
statement being logical. An assertion, no matter how "obviously" true is
nonetheless not a logical statement. It is at best an axiom.
>> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
> If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no wasps."
> but if you want to get anal, sure, you can't prove it.
Logic is probably one of the most anal disciplines around.
>> 3) Your argument assumes that your choice will have an audience.
>> This is not stated in the conditions and, indeed, the direct
>> opposite is alluded to: "no links to you whatsoever".
> No, it does not assume that. In most cases, rescuing someone
> means that the person rescued is an "audience", and there could
> be others in the audience;
The word "rescue" was never used in the challenge. It was inserted after
the fact to dress up an axiom as a logical statement. The challenge was:
"Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
(non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
you whatsoever die." Stick to the challenge as provided instead of adding
entities which are neither mentioned nor inferred.
>> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
> Perhaps he is, but I don't see a problem with this.
Logically it is a big problem. It is a non-sequitur. Again this is tarting
up an assumed axiom as a logical argument.
> Does he have to prove -everthing- that he writes??
By the language of the challenge, YES!
>>> 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I
>>> stand by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will
>>> betray my own values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but
>>> harm nonetheless.
>> Logical flaw:
>> 1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted
>> axioms. The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the
>> position cited.
> If his ethical code is as above, then it is logical for him to help
> people.
His purported ethical code was not in the challenge. His insertion of it to
bolster his case indicates that he acknowledges in advance that the position
is logically untenable. He has to make assumptions which by their very
nature cannot be logically proven.
>>> 3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return
>>> the favor someday. However unlikely this is, it's a valid
>>> consideration.
>> 1) The consideration is explicitly made invalid by the language
>> "no links to you whatsoever". A link of favours across time is a
>> link. It is specifically exempted from the problem domain.
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
> The problem implies that the stranger has no links to him at
> the present (although this is impossible).
The problem's language says "no links to you WHATSOEVER" (emphasis mine).
That last word exempts *ANY* link of *ANY* kind, direct or indirect.
> If the implication was that the stranger will never have any
> link to him, then this should have been clearly stated;
It was. Any dictionary can confirm this.
> Of course, this assumes that essentially every
> person on the planet is connected in some way.
Now you're catching on.
> However, it may or may not be recognized by others (the
> original statement is unclear on this point) that it was
> his decision to have the stranger die instead of having
> his hand cut.
It isn't unclear unless you start to assume axioms not stated. Which is
sort of my point.
>>> I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
>> Your belief is contrafactual. Your reasons may be reasonable,
>> but they are not logical. They cannot be.
> His reasons are certainly more logical than your "logic".
Inserting axioms when the challenge is to support logically is not in any
way logical. Logic is the process whereby one proves compound statements by
manipulating assumed primitive axioms. A brief refresher:
All Canadians are arrogant pigs. (axiom)
I am a Canadian. (axiom)
Therefore I am an arrogant pig. (logical statement)
One cannot prove the first axiom with logic. One can only demonstrate its
truth or falsehood with examples. (Finding a Canadian who isn't an arrogant
pig, for example.) One cannot prove the second axiom with logic. One can
only demonstrate its truth or falsehood with examples. (Finding out that
I'm not a Canadian citizen for example.) The final statement is a logical
statement. The argument that it is proposing is true iff (sic) both axioms
are correct. If both axioms are correct, my arrogant pig status is
incontrovertible. If either axiom is incorrect and thereby removed from the
logical system, the conclusion is not logical: it is a non-sequitur. (Note:
the statement isn't necessarily rendered incorrect. It merely ceases to be
logical.)
A purported "logical statement" which conceals some additional axiomatic
assumptions is not a logical statement in that logical system. The logical
system will need to be changed to include the assumed axiom or the logical
statement will have to be changed to only refer to axioms provided in the
logical system.
Chuck Ensign
> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
Not possible? Very possible.
Basically, all logic flows from statements are taken as fact.
If you come from a culture that believes, or you believe, that the all people
are complete equals and that pain and suffering should be minimized amoung
humankind as a whole, AND the situation above is discribing two people in
similar conditions before the injury, then obviously it is impossible to
logically justify this.
Now, if you base your laws of morality off the laws of genetics, then it is
very easy to justify saying that them dying is preferable than you getting a
cut - their death has nothing to do in the sleightest with your reproductive
capability or your genetics - in fact, if both of you are male, his death
actually HELPS you - less competition. You getting your cut could lead to
infection, a nice scar, and could hurt your chances.
Note that if you take the second scenario as your basis, you can logically
justify murder of competition (and infanticide), rape, and a host of other
things.
Personally, I don't agree with the second basis for logic and morality, but
humans are the only species that follows the first line in the sleightest -
every other creature on this planet is almost entirely in the second
category.
So who really is logical?
-Ensign
--
"Some folks try to achieve immortality in the strangest ways.
I'd like to achieve it by simply not dying."
-Woody Allen
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Note that if you take the second scenario as your basis, you can logically
> justify murder of competition (and infanticide), rape, and a host of other
> things.
>
> Personally, I don't agree with the second basis for logic and morality, but
> humans are the only species that follows the first line in the sleightest -
> every other creature on this planet is almost entirely in the second
> category.
>
> So who really is logical?
>
> -Ensign
Hardly the _only_ one, it's just less common among wild animals, pretty
much for the same reason that moralizing is less common amongst
desperate people- they don't have time for it. Well fed animals are
sometimes capable of quite surprising leaps of affection, such as bears
or gorillas that adopt and protect little kittens. It's the ones for
whom life is a daily struggle for survival who are the most ruthless,
IME. :-)
There are also, of course, some interesting social mechanisms such as
the non-breeding members of packs, herds, or hives, who still work hard
for the benefit of the group. And some traits, such as a willingness to
die to protect your group, may be survival traits for the species even
if not for the individual- groups where all members share that trait do
significantly better than groups where all of the members act in an
entirely selfish manner. If the trait worsens a given critter's life
expectancy and breeding chances, it may still not die out if the
_average_ member of such a group does better because of it.
Kiz
Tim Mott
to
the same crime that you rail against, although you have neatly deleted it
from your
previous reply:
You said:
> > 5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of "enhanced
> > chances of survival") situation of having everybody else in society work
for
> > the common good and you working solely for your own benefit.
to which I replied:
> And you are assuming that (a) he hasn't considered it and rejected it (how
> do you know he's ignoring it?) and (b) that working for one's own benefit
is
> "clearly superior". Consider the categorical imperative.
Do you deny that you are making a completely illogical statement here?
Read on...
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:q05P3.477$%36....@198.235.216.4...
> Tim Mott <tm...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:7uikgf$jhi$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> Logical flaws:
> >> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you
> >> describe enhances your survival.
>
> > Clearly, such a society does enhance his survival if the people
> > therein are willing to rescue him from danger or in other ways keep
> > him alive.
>
> There is a difference between a statement being true (or rational) and a
> statement being logical. An assertion, no matter how "obviously" true is
> nonetheless not a logical statement. It is at best an axiom.
A: If other people "are willing to accept some personal risk in order to
rescue others from life-threatening situations," that enhances my survival.
B: In such a society as described above, other people "are willing to
accept
some personal risk in order to rescue others from life-threatening
situations."
Assuming A and B are true, this society logically enhances my survival.
> >> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
>
> > If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
>
> This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no wasps."
It certainly isn't. Also, your statement is illogical. More appropriate
would be,
"If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no wasp venom." It really depends on
what sort of meaning you want to attach to "good". I am speaking in
Darwinian
terms, using "good" for "beneficial". If wasp venom did not benefit wasps,
either
it would not have evolved in the first place, or it would have gradually
disappeared
after it became unnecessary.
> > but if you want to get anal, sure, you can't prove it.
>
> Logic is probably one of the most anal disciplines around.
Yes.
> >> 3) Your argument assumes that your choice will have an audience.
> >> This is not stated in the conditions and, indeed, the direct
> >> opposite is alluded to: "no links to you whatsoever".
>
> > No, it does not assume that. In most cases, rescuing someone
> > means that the person rescued is an "audience", and there could
> > be others in the audience;
>
> The word "rescue" was never used in the challenge. It was inserted after
> the fact to dress up an axiom as a logical statement. The challenge was:
> "Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> you whatsoever die." Stick to the challenge as provided instead of adding
> entities which are neither mentioned nor inferred.
One might argue that to prevent someone's death is to rescue them, but
that is irrelevant. My point was about your false statement about an
audience.
> >> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
>
> > Perhaps he is, but I don't see a problem with this.
>
> Logically it is a big problem. It is a non-sequitur. Again this is
tarting
> up an assumed axiom as a logical argument.
You must have some axioms, or you have nothing to build an argument on.
You cannot prove anything meaningful without some axioms. If this was
your original point, then you are absolutely right in saying that it is
impossible.
Prove that logic exists, using no axioms. You can't do it.
> > Does he have to prove -everthing- that he writes??
>
> By the language of the challenge, YES!
There is a level at which one must stop proving things and take things for
granted.
You could go as far as you want proving things and it would never be enough.
For
instance, you could tell him to prove that the message he wrote is actually
the
message we read on the NG, but that would be silly and we assume that it is
true.
> >>> 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I
> >>> stand by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will
> >>> betray my own values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but
> >>> harm nonetheless.
>
> >> Logical flaw:
> >> 1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted
> >> axioms. The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the
> >> position cited.
>
> > If his ethical code is as above, then it is logical for him to help
> > people.
>
> His purported ethical code was not in the challenge. His insertion of it
to
> bolster his case indicates that he acknowledges in advance that the
position
> is logically untenable. He has to make assumptions which by their very
> nature cannot be logically proven.
No axioms within a system can be proven without going outside that system.
I think he is building a rational and philosophical argument (that is
certainly
much more realistic and "logical" in an unformal way") than a formal logical
argument.
> >>> 3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return
> >>> the favor someday. However unlikely this is, it's a valid
> >>> consideration.
>
> >> 1) The consideration is explicitly made invalid by the language
> >> "no links to you whatsoever". A link of favours across time is a
> >> link. It is specifically exempted from the problem domain.
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Yes it is.
No, it isn't. If it was intended to be, it should have been stated that
this
stranger has "no links and never will have any links to you." Besides, the
entire premise is impossible, because if him cutting his hand is connected
to the stranger's life, that is undeniably a link. Perhaps you should look
up
"link" in the dictionary. In this sense, the statement we are trying to
prove is
self-contradictory, and the answer is that it is trivially impossible to
prove.
> > The problem implies that the stranger has no links to him at
> > the present (although this is impossible).
>
> The problem's language says "no links to you WHATSOEVER" (emphasis mine).
> That last word exempts *ANY* link of *ANY* kind, direct or indirect.
Yes, but it does not imply time considerations.
> > If the implication was that the stranger will never have any
> > link to him, then this should have been clearly stated;
>
> It was. Any dictionary can confirm this.
No, it wasn't. If you want to include future situations, you should state
that.
> > Of course, this assumes that essentially every
> > person on the planet is connected in some way.
>
> Now you're catching on.
Thanks.
> > However, it may or may not be recognized by others (the
> > original statement is unclear on this point) that it was
> > his decision to have the stranger die instead of having
> > his hand cut.
>
> It isn't unclear unless you start to assume axioms not stated. Which is
> sort of my point.
Well, in the argument you would just have to consider two cases:
(a) it is known by others, and (b) it is not.
> >>> I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
>
> >> Your belief is contrafactual. Your reasons may be reasonable,
> >> but they are not logical. They cannot be.
>
> > His reasons are certainly more logical than your "logic".
>
> Inserting axioms when the challenge is to support logically is not in any
> way logical. Logic is the process whereby one proves compound statements
by
> manipulating assumed primitive axioms. A brief refresher:
<etc.>
True, but as I said before, if you want to make a meaningful argument, you
need
to assume something. And I suppose this is your point, but I prefer to look
at the
problem from a philosophical standpoint, and ignore the trivialities of
logical
anality (?).
Tim Mott
Brian Stewart
>
> Brian Stewart <bast...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:380C9E...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>
> >>> I could get another? :-)
>
> >> A lot of philosophy majors and computer geeks seem to not
> >> be using their own. Maybe you could enter some kind of
> >> lend-lease arrangement with them?
>
> > The only one I know locally who wants to get rid of his has
> > one I don't want! Maybe I should go to e-bay?
>
> Yeah, that's probably a good bet. I'll warn you against using any kind of
> time-sharing deal, though. I've got one of those, and the only time I get
> to use the life is during "off" times like posting to Usenet.
>
Thanks! Well, it is off to e-bay I go!
BAS
Michael T. Richter
> You must have some axioms, or you have nothing to build an argument
> on.
Now you're catching on -- I hope. The assertion I was challenging was an
assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely upon logic.
This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY* unprovable
assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
Really. It is that simple.
>> The problem's language says "no links to you WHATSOEVER" (emphasis
>> mine). That last word exempts *ANY* link of *ANY* kind, direct or
>> indirect.
> Yes, but it does not imply time considerations.
Go back to your grade school English. Work on your vocabulary. Learn what
"whatsoever" means.
> True, but as I said before, if you want to make a meaningful argument,
> you need to assume something. And I suppose this is your point,
... it is ...
> but I prefer to look at the problem from a philosophical standpoint,
> and ignore the trivialities of logical anality (?).
Your preference is irrelevant. If you claim that your moral system is
completely logically derived, you are wrong. No amount of slithering and
twisting around will change this.
Michael T. Richter
news:380CE8E2...@uclink4.berkeley.edu...
>> Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
>> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> Not possible? Very possible.
No. Not without unprovable axioms. Read the rest of the thread.
Tim Mott
> > You must have some axioms, or you have nothing to build an argument
> > on.
>
> assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely upon logic.
> This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY* unprovable
> assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
>
> Really. It is that simple.
Ok, if that was your whole point, then yes, that is true.
> >> The problem's language says "no links to you WHATSOEVER" (emphasis
> >> mine). That last word exempts *ANY* link of *ANY* kind, direct or
> >> indirect.
>
> > Yes, but it does not imply time considerations.
>
> Go back to your grade school English. Work on your vocabulary. Learn
what
> "whatsoever" means.
Being condescending doesn't mean you're right. Sorry, but that intention
wasn't
defined in the original question. As for English, I find it amusing how you
choose
to ignore any mistakes of -yours- that I point out, and try to attack me on
points
that aren't really that important (and you're wrong in this case).
> > True, but as I said before, if you want to make a meaningful argument,
> > you need to assume something. And I suppose this is your point,
>
> ... it is ...
>
> > but I prefer to look at the problem from a philosophical standpoint,
> > and ignore the trivialities of logical anality (?).
>
> Your preference is irrelevant. If you claim that your moral system is
> completely logically derived, you are wrong. No amount of slithering and
> twisting around will change this.
Yes, my preference is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean I don't have one. I
was just saying that was my preference, not proving anything by saying I
preferred to look at it one way or another! When did I claim that my moral
system was completely logically derived?? I just said that I was looking at
it
philosophically, not logically! Are you on crack?
Lone Wolf
> > You must have some axioms, or you have nothing to build an
> argument
> > on.
> was an
> assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely
> upon logic.
> This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY*
> unprovable
> assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
> Really. It is that simple.
> Your preference is irrelevant. If you claim that your moral
> system is
> completely logically derived, you are wrong. No amount of
> slithering and
> twisting around will change this.
Okay, now that you're nice and smug, I ask "so what?" You've proven
one person wrong in his use of language. I'm assuming you're saying
that "now that you have no more fundamental truths to base your life
on, you have to go to God for them."
And I say "You don't get out much, do you?"
I base my worldview purely on experience. It probably isn't much
different from the guy who went purely "on logic," because his axioms
started from experience. And for me, logic is a pattern I see in my
experience.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Patrick M. Berry
> Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:7ui7hg$dd3$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com...
> >>> Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> >>> based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
>
> >> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no
> >> links to you whatsoever die. (Hint: this is not possible.)
>
> > is one in which people are willing to accept some personal risk in
> > order to rescue others from life-threatening situations. I want to
> > promote and maintain that sort of culture, and one of the ways to do
> > so is by example.
>
> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you describe
> enhances your survival.
It seems self-evident to me that my life expectancy is greater in a society
in which people will help me than in one where they'll stand by and let me
die. Have I overlooked something?
> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
That's one of my axioms. Axioms are, by definition, assumptions.
> 3) Your argument assumes that your choice will have an audience. This is
> not stated in the conditions and, indeed, the direct opposite is alluded to:
> "no links to you whatsoever".
This is, perhaps, a valid point. However, I submit that, not being omniscient,
I can't know whether I'm being observed. Assuming the absence of an audience
is potentially as erroneous as assuming the presence of one.
> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
That's not an assumption on my part; I know from personal experience that it
*can* work. There are, of course, no guarantees.
> 5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of "enhanced
> chances of survival") situation of having everybody else in society work for
> the common good and you working solely for your own benefit.
That would be inconsistent. Any logic that would lead me to work only for my
own benefit would lead others to work only for theirs. For me to expect them
to do otherwise would require me to assume that I am superior to them in some
way (better at logical reasoning, perhaps). I have no reason to think so.
> > 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I stand
> > by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will betray my own
> > values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but harm nonetheless.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted axioms.
> The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the position cited.
No, there's only one axiom here, the value I place on human life. That's not
a logical flaw. Logic *requires* axioms. You can question the validity of
my axioms, but you can't fault me for having them.
If the aforementioned axiom is accepted, my actions follow logically from it.
> > 3. This particular stranger may be in a position to return the favor
> > someday. However unlikely this is, it's a valid consideration.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) The consideration is explicitly made invalid by the language "no links to
> you whatsoever". A link of favours across time is a link. It is
> specifically exempted from the problem domain.
Then the problem domain is meaningless. If I act to save a stranger, I am
creating a link. If you forbid me to do so on that basis, then your scenario
is rigged to allow only the answer you want to hear.
> > 4. In some jurisdictions, failure to try to save people in an emergency
> > is a crime. If I were to do nothing, I could be tried, convicted, and
> > punished.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) You have added conditions to the scenario which were not present. "No
> links to you whatsoever." No emergency situation was mentioned.
The imminent death of another person was mentioned, which often involves an
emergency. You did not specifically exclude emergencies in your scenario.
They are a possibility. Ignoring them is irrational.
> No jurisdiction was mentioned.
Nor was any excluded. This scenario is possible. Ignoring it is irrational.
> > I believe my reasons for doing so to be logical.
>
> Your belief is contrafactual.
You have failed to demonstrate this.
> Your reasons may be reasonable, but they are not logical. They cannot be.
A flat statement offered with no supporting logic whatsoever.
> > All of my responses can be summarized by the following statement:
> > There *are* no strangers with no links to me whatsoever.
>
> The specific language of the scenario says there is one.
Then the scenario is invalid, because it demands that I accept a false
premise. Any conclusion arrived at by an argument from false premises is
meaningless.
> Modifying the scenario to suit your axioms is not logical.
Then I reject the scenario in its entirety, since it is without meaning.
> It may be true. It may be reasonable. It is not logical.
I disagree.
Patrick M. Berry
> > Clearly, such a society does enhance his survival if the people
> > therein are willing to rescue him from danger or in other ways keep
> > him alive.
>
> There is a difference between a statement being true (or rational) and a
> statement being logical. An assertion, no matter how "obviously" true is
> nonetheless not a logical statement. It is at best an axiom.
You're splitting hairs. If an action that prevents my death is not considered
to enhance my chances of survival, exactly how would you define that phrase?
And when you talk about individual statements (as opposed to arguments) being
"rational" or "logical", it's not at all clear what you mean.
> Logic is probably one of the most anal disciplines around.
No argument there. (This is not sarcasm; I took three semesters of logic for
the fun of it.)
> The word "rescue" was never used in the challenge. It was inserted after
> the fact to dress up an axiom as a logical statement. The challenge was:
> "Logically defend the position that it is better that you suffer a
> (non-lethal) cut upon your hand than a complete stranger with no links to
> you whatsoever die." Stick to the challenge as provided instead of adding
> entities which are neither mentioned nor inferred.
The clear implication is that, by choosing to suffer the cut on my hand, I
can prevent the stranger's death. In what way is it inappropriate to refer
to this as a rescue?
> > Does he have to prove -everthing- that he writes??
>
> By the language of the challenge, YES!
No. Axioms are accepted without proof or rejected, but they aren't proven.
All arguments have at least one axiom.
> His purported ethical code was not in the challenge.
Nor did the challenge exclude the citation of ethical principles. In fact,
it didn't exclude anything. Your belief that nothing can be added to the
challenge is an unproven assumption.
> > The problem implies that the stranger has no links to him at
> > the present (although this is impossible).
>
> The problem's language says "no links to you WHATSOEVER" (emphasis mine).
> That last word exempts *ANY* link of *ANY* kind, direct or indirect.
In other words, you're insisting on an impossible condition in your
challenge, rendering it meaningless.
> Inserting axioms when the challenge is to support logically is not in any
> way logical.
Demanding logic without axioms is not in any way logical.
> The final statement is a logical
> statement.
No. Individual statements are not "logical" or "illogical"; they are merely
true or false.
> If either axiom is incorrect and thereby removed from the
> logical system, the conclusion is not logical: it is a non-sequitur. (Note:
> the statement isn't necessarily rendered incorrect. It merely ceases to be
> logical.)
This is an oversimplification. An argument is logical if its conclusion follows
from its premises. If one or more of the premises is false, the conclusion may
also be false, but the argument is still logical.
Patrick M. Berry
> Tim Mott <tm...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:7uj0gm$q44$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > on.
>
> Now you're catching on -- I hope. The assertion I was challenging was an
> assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely upon logic.
> This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY* unprovable
> assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
Nonsense. Logic *requires* axioms. We can disagree over *which* axioms to
start with, but demanding logical argument with no axioms whatsoever is
silly.
Michael T. Richter
news:09920fb9...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
> Okay, now that you're nice and smug, I ask "so what?" You've proven
> one person wrong in his use of language. I'm assuming you're saying
> that "now that you have no more fundamental truths to base your life
> on, you have to go to God for them."
You really shouldn't make assumptions. I'm challenging a smug,
self-elevating assertion that someone made. I hold no opinions I'm willing
to argue here on where ones fundamental axioms come from.
> And I say "You don't get out much, do you?"
> And for me, logic is a pattern I see in my experience.
And for me a banana is a large piece of wood used to hold up a roof. What's
your point?
If you're going to use a word, use it correctly.
Michael T. Richter
>> Logical flaws:
>> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you
>> describe enhances your survival.
> It seems self-evident to me that my life expectancy is greater in
> a society in which people will help me than in one where they'll
> stand by and let me die. Have I overlooked something?
Yes. You've overlooked that there is no logical proof along the lines of
"it seems obvious to me therefore it is true". You have stated an axiom
here. It is probably a truthful and/or accurate axiom, but it is not a
logical statement.
>> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
> That's one of my axioms. Axioms are, by definition, assumptions.
Which is my point. You cannot have a system of ethics based upon pure
logical derivation. You must have axioms, and axioms are intrinsically
unprovable.
>> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
> That's not an assumption on my part; I know from personal experience
> that it *can* work. There are, of course, no guarantees.
"True statement" and "logical statement" are not the same thing. Yes the
statement is (probably) true. No the statement isn't logical.
>> 5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of
>> "enhanced chances of survival") situation of having everybody
>> else in society work for the common good and you working solely
>> for your own benefit.
> That would be inconsistent. Any logic that would lead me to work
> only for my own benefit would lead others to work only for theirs.
This is an unsupported assertion. Indeed it is also very probably false
given the number of people who convince others to "do right" while soaking
up the cash from them for their own selfish purposes.
> If the aforementioned axiom is accepted, my actions follow logically
> from it.
But the claim was made that a person's entire set of ethical beliefs were
logically derived; in short a system of logical belief with no axioms.
Michael T. Richter
> Demanding logic without axioms is not in any way logical.
Go back to the message I issued the challenge in response to. The claim WAS
that there existed a logical system without axioms.
Lone Wolf
> > Okay, now that you're nice and smug, I ask "so what?" You've
> proven
> > one person wrong in his use of language. I'm assuming you're
> saying
> > that "now that you have no more fundamental truths to base your
> life
> > on, you have to go to God for them."
> You really shouldn't make assumptions. I'm challenging a smug,
> self-elevating assertion that someone made.
By pulling a logical bait-and-switch? Looks more like you were out to
pat yourself on the back
>I hold no opinions
> I'm willing
> to argue here on where ones fundamental axioms come from.
This sounds pretty smug and self-elevating to me.
> > And I say "You don't get out much, do you?"
> > And for me, logic is a pattern I see in my experience.
> And for me a banana is a large piece of wood used to hold up a
> roof.
You don't get out much do you?
> What's
> your point?
Well, it was in that little piece you cut out of my post. I thought
you were arguing beliefs. Turns out you were just sniping.
> If you're going to use a word, use it correctly.
Bull. You have no high ground to stand on, so you're going to tell me
that you just perpetuated a 2 day flame war over someone using bad
syntax. RIIIIIGGGGHT
Lao Wolf -Hope is the only constant
Lone Wolf
> > Demanding logic without axioms is not in any way logical.
> Go back to the message I issued the challenge in response to. The
> claim WAS
> that there existed a logical system without axioms.
"I have a moral code that I think is based on logical principles."
Maybe your computer is screwing with you, but I find a far strech from
his statement to your conclusion. He doesn't say it is based ONLY on
logical principles. You created the false dilemma (I knew there was a
logical fallacy somewhere) that either a moral system is based only on
logical principles, or it isn't. Saying something is logical doen't
mean its proven only by logic, but that it follows logically from the
axioms. And there are some pretty concrete axioms out there, many of
which have been stated in this thread already.
Lao Wolf -Hope is the only constant - but don't ask me to prove it.
Tim Mott
> >> Logical flaws:
> >> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you
> >> describe enhances your survival.
>
> > It seems self-evident to me that my life expectancy is greater in
> > a society in which people will help me than in one where they'll
> > stand by and let me die. Have I overlooked something?
>
> "it seems obvious to me therefore it is true". You have stated an axiom
> here. It is probably a truthful and/or accurate axiom, but it is not a
> logical statement.
>
>
> > That's one of my axioms. Axioms are, by definition, assumptions.
>
> logical derivation. You must have axioms, and axioms are intrinsically
> unprovable.
>
>
> > That's not an assumption on my part; I know from personal experience
> > that it *can* work. There are, of course, no guarantees.
>
> statement is (probably) true. No the statement isn't logical.
>
> >> "enhanced chances of survival") situation of having everybody
> >> else in society work for the common good and you working solely
> >> for your own benefit.
>
> > That would be inconsistent. Any logic that would lead me to work
> > only for my own benefit would lead others to work only for theirs.
>
> given the number of people who convince others to "do right" while soaking
> up the cash from them for their own selfish purposes.
>
> > from it.
>
> logically derived; in short a system of logical belief with no axioms.
Hmmm, let's see....
"I have a moral code that I think is based on logical principles."
(a) He -thinks- it is, he doesn't say it is.
(b) He doesn't say that the code is based upon a system of logic that has
no
axioms. He says that his system is based on logical principles. Now, I
take
a "logical principle" to mean something along the lines of p ^ q => t, p is
true,
q is true, therefore t is true. I don't take "logical principles" to mean a
system of reasoning that starts of assuming absolutely nothing, and builds
a moral code from there! That would be absurd! I ask again, are you on
crack?
Patrick M. Berry
> Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:7unlcl$6gr$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com...
> >> Logical flaws:
> >> 1) The first sentence assumes without proof that the society you
> >> describe enhances your survival.
>
> > It seems self-evident to me that my life expectancy is greater in
> > a society in which people will help me than in one where they'll
> > stand by and let me die. Have I overlooked something?
>
> Yes. You've overlooked that there is no logical proof along the lines of
> "it seems obvious to me therefore it is true". You have stated an axiom
> here. It is probably a truthful and/or accurate axiom, but it is not a
> logical statement.
More hair-splitting. Please explain what you think "enhances my survival"
means, if *preventing my death* doesn't qualify.
> You cannot have a system of ethics based upon pure
> logical derivation. You must have axioms, and axioms are intrinsically
> unprovable.
This is a red herring. I never claimed to have derived an ethical system
without using any axioms. Quite the opposite, in fact. I stated that my
ethical system was based on logic. As you say, logic REQUIRES axioms.
Therefore, my statement that I used logic *implied* the use of axioms, and it
makes no sense for you to act surprised and shocked to discover that, in fact,
I *am* using them.
As I've said once already, you can question the truth of my axioms, but you
cannot object to the fact that I am using axioms. You asked for logic;
therefore, you *asked* for axioms.
> >> 4) It is assumed in your response that teaching by example works.
>
> > That's not an assumption on my part; I know from personal experience
> > that it *can* work. There are, of course, no guarantees.
>
> "True statement" and "logical statement" are not the same thing. Yes the
> statement is (probably) true. No the statement isn't logical.
"Logical statement" is a meaningless phrase. Only arguments can be logical.
Statements are true or untrue.
> >> 5) You are ignoring the clearly superior (by your criterion of
> >> "enhanced chances of survival") situation of having everybody
> >> else in society work for the common good and you working solely
> >> for your own benefit.
>
> > That would be inconsistent. Any logic that would lead me to work
> > only for my own benefit would lead others to work only for theirs.
>
> This is an unsupported assertion. Indeed it is also very probably false
> given the number of people who convince others to "do right" while soaking
> up the cash from them for their own selfish purposes.
Perhaps. But you are urging me to adopt a plan that requires me to rely on
the illogical or irrational behavior of others for my own well-being. I
don't see how this can be considered "logical".
In any case, your claim that "having everybody else in society work for the
common good and you working solely for your own benefit" is "clearly superior"
is an unsupported assertion. Shall I accept it as an axiom? You certainly
haven't attempted to prove it. In fact, you haven't even tried to define what
"the common good" is, if it has any meaning at all.
Earlier in the same article, you stated that "there is no logical proof along
the lines of 'it seems obvious to me therefore it is true.'" Here, you expect
me to accept an assertion merely because it seems "clearly" true to you.
Please be consistent.
> > If the aforementioned axiom is accepted, my actions follow logically
> > from it.
>
> But the claim was made that a person's entire set of ethical beliefs were
> logically derived; in short a system of logical belief with no axioms.
I made no such claim.
Nothing is "logically derived" as you are using the term. Logic without
axioms is impossible.
Patrick M. Berry
> Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> > Demanding logic without axioms is not in any way logical.
>
> Go back to the message I issued the challenge in response to. The claim WAS
> that there existed a logical system without axioms.
Wrong. You were responding to ME, and I did NOT make any such claim.
A.F. Simpson
> And some traits, such as a willingness to
> die to protect your group, may be survival traits for the species even
> if not for the individual- groups where all members share that trait do
> significantly better than groups where all of the members act in an
> entirely selfish manner. If the trait worsens a given critter's life
> expectancy and breeding chances, it may still not die out if the
> _average_ member of such a group does better because of it.
Murder, rape, religion, bigotry, homosexuality, morality, linguistic
nitpicking: off topic, but acceptable.
But _that_ is species selectionism and some things _cannot_ be
tolerated.
BURN THE PSEUDO-DARWINIST HERETIC!
> Kiz
love
Anna
Lone Wolf
this Troll vanquished.
Lone Wolf, net.paladin
-Hope is the only constant.
Admiral Christopher
> > 2. My ethical code holds human life to be of great value. If I stand
> > by and watch a person die when I could save them, I will betray my own
> > values and do myself harm. Not physical harm, but harm nonetheless.
>
> Logical flaw:
> 1) This is not a logical argument but rather a series of asserted axioms.
> The challenge was to LOGICALLY (emphasis mine) defend the position cited.
>
No, his ethical code, wether learned or indoctrinated, is still his operating
system or program if you will. Since the death of another human would violate
his programming there is the distinct possibility of causing him grave
psychological damage, much like making a computer calculate the exact value of
pi. Your request for a totally logical answer would require him, Patrick, to
act and think like a computer and since he is not a computer substituting
computer-like actions substitutes Patrick and makes the whole situation
irrelevant. So in the end the choice is between a pinprick or the death of
another man and possible mental shutdown.
> > All of my responses can be summarized by the following statement:
> > There *are* no strangers with no links to me whatsoever.
>
> The specific language of the scenario says there is one. Modifying the
> scenario to suit your axioms is not logical. It may be true. It may be
> reasonable. It is not logical.
>
Therefore it is also illogical to waste time on solving a situation that doesn't
and can ever exist. There will *always* be other circumstances that exist.
Adm
Admiral Christopher
> > > You must have some axioms, or you have nothing to build an argument
> > > on.
> >
> > Now you're catching on -- I hope. The assertion I was challenging was an
> > assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely upon logic.
> > This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY* unprovable
> > assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
>
> Nonsense. Logic *requires* axioms. We can disagree over *which* axioms to
> start with, but demanding logical argument with no axioms whatsoever is
> silly.
More specifically logic involving people requires axioms, people are inherently variable in
that case. Logic involving unchanging constants doesn't need them.
Adm
Frank T. Sronce
Gosh. Someone wants to see me burned at the stake, and I didn't even
make any puns in the post. :-)
Kiz
Michael T. Richter
>>> Demanding logic without axioms is not in any way logical.
>> Go back to the message I issued the challenge in response to.
>> The claim WAS that there existed a logical system without axioms.
> Wrong. You were responding to ME, and I did NOT make any such claim.
Here's the statement in context:
>> I'm going to cut to the chase, which you are getting towards,
>> yourself. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a logical basis
>> for religious belief nor for morality. Ultimately, one must
>> either draw a consciously arbitrary limit or rely upon testimony
>> of revelation.
> Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
Either you were wording an agreement as a disagreement or you're saying
you're using a foundation of something other than logic. (Axioms are not a
*part* of logic. They are what logical operators manipulate.)
Michael Rooney
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in article
<o40R3.460$Bx2...@198.235.216.4>...
>
> >> I'm going to cut to the chase, which you are getting towards,
> >> yourself. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a logical basis
> >> for religious belief nor for morality. Ultimately, one must
> >> either draw a consciously arbitrary limit or rely upon testimony
> >> of revelation.
>
> > Hmm. I'm not religious, and I have a moral code that I think is
> > based on logical principles. But perhaps I'm just deluding myself.
>
> Either you were wording an agreement as a disagreement or you're saying
> you're using a foundation of something other than logic. (Axioms are not
a
> *part* of logic. They are what logical operators manipulate.)
You seem to be equivocating here on the meaning of
"logic". While it may be true that logic, narrowly
construed (e.g., FOL), provides no grounds for
morality, your general conclusion that therefore there
is no logical basis for morality does not follow. In
the latter claim you are using logic to mean something
like "any sort of rational justification", and this sweeping
claim is scarcely supported by observing that axiomatic
systems are arbitrary. In like manner, one could argue
that because you cannot ground physics in ZFC set
theory, physics is either arbitrary or based on testimony.
Cordially,
M.
red
> >> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
>
> > If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
>
> This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no wasps."
Indeed it is. For wasps.
red
> Now you're catching on -- I hope. The assertion I was challenging was an
> assertion by one person that his moral system was based solely upon logic.
> This *CANNOT* be true. It *MUST* have some *INTRINSICALLY* unprovable
> assumptions -- axioms -- which *CANNOT* be logically derived.
>
> Really. It is that simple.
Which, of course, is an axiom that cannot be derived.
> Your preference is irrelevant. If you claim that your moral system is
> completely logically derived, you are wrong. No amount of slithering and
> twisting around will change this.
If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
red
> You seem to be equivocating here on the meaning of
> "logic". While it may be true that logic, narrowly
> construed (e.g., FOL), provides no grounds for
> morality, your general conclusion that therefore there
> is no logical basis for morality does not follow. In
> the latter claim you are using logic to mean something
> like "any sort of rational justification", and this sweeping
> claim is scarcely supported by observing that axiomatic
> systems are arbitrary. In like manner, one could argue
> that because you cannot ground physics in ZFC set
> theory, physics is either arbitrary or based on testimony.
Besides, what is "morality" in this context?
A form of behaviour? why should that not be logically derived?
A set of ethics? Why can that not be logically derived?
A theory of life? Why can that not be logically derived?
Michael T. Richter
news:3815A833...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net...
> If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
A set of axioms from which logic is used to derive new conclusions to adapt
to situations not covered by the axioms.
red
> > It seems self-evident to me that my life expectancy is greater in
> > a society in which people will help me than in one where they'll
> > stand by and let me die. Have I overlooked something?
>
> Yes. You've overlooked that there is no logical proof along the lines of
> "it seems obvious to me therefore it is true". You have stated an axiom
> here. It is probably a truthful and/or accurate axiom, but it is not a
> logical statement.
Fine. It is better to live in a society in which discrete individuals
act individually but sympathetically, as thus I have access to a greater
array of goods and services than if I lived in isolation, or in a
society of isolates.
My evidence is the behaviour of human civilisation.
> Which is my point. You cannot have a system of ethics based upon pure
> logical derivation. You must have axioms, and axioms are intrinsically
> unprovable.
Why? Explain your axiom.
red
> Now, if you base your laws of morality off the laws of genetics, then it is
> very easy to justify saying that them dying is preferable than you getting a
> cut - their death has nothing to do in the sleightest with your reproductive
> capability or your genetics - in fact, if both of you are male, his death
> actually HELPS you - less competition. You getting your cut could lead to
> infection, a nice scar, and could hurt your chances.
Interpetation - genetrics does not mandate against cooperative
behaviour, as can quite obviously be seen in the varying levels of
cooperation that exist within evolved organisms. You are assuming a
moral perspective from a merely material observation - your premise does
not lead to your conclusion.
Ty Beard
> If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
Why, God of course.
--Ty Beard
Varsil Savai
wrote:
>red <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote in message
>
>> If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
>
>Why, God of course.
>
Dear (Insert name of the deity/deities/forces of your choice), I can't
believe you just said that...
*watches the thread spiral down an entirely NEW path...*
Well, I guess I'll just start it off...
The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
Varsil Savai
Heh, what about congenital heart defects? Who are they good for? :)
Patrick M. Berry
Cardiologists, of course.
Glenn Dowdy
Varsil Savai wrote in message <3815e637.1064231@news>...
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:09:04 +0100, red
><r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
>
>>Michael T. Richter wrote:
>>
>>> >> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
>>>
>>> > If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
>>>
>>> This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no
wasps."
>>
>>Indeed it is. For wasps.
>
>Heh, what about congenital heart defects? Who are they good for? :)
Second string basketball players.
--
Glenn Dowdy
Werebat
>
> In rec.games.frp.misc Varsil Savai <var...@home.com> wrote:
> % Heh, what about congenital heart defects? Who are they good for? :)
>
> Demonstrating the premacy of culture over genetics: if it weren't for
> culture, most people with them would die very young, through the normal
> selective mechanisms.
If it weren't for genetics, the culture wouldn't exist. They are the
reason why humans tend to live in social groups and cougars don't.
- Ron ^*^
--
邢 唷��
Lone Wolf
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:09:04 +0100, red
> <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
> >Michael T. Richter wrote:
> >
> >> >> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
> >>
> >> > If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
> >>
> >> This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have
> no wasps."
> >
> >Indeed it is. For wasps.
Heh. No one. That's why not everyone has one.
> :)
:)
Lone Wolf -Hope is the only constant.
Aaron Pound
It holds as much water as any other code of morality that bases itself on
a set of unprovable axioms, which means all of them.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Brian Stewart
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:09:04 +0100, red
> <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael T. Richter wrote:
> >
> >> >> 2) It is assumed in your response that your survival is good.
> >>
> >> > If survival wasn't good, everyone would be dead.
> >>
> >> This is just nonsense. "If wasp venom weren't good, we'd have no wasps."
> >
> >Indeed it is. For wasps.
>
The heirs.
BAS
red
> If it weren't for genetics, the culture wouldn't exist. They are the
> reason why humans tend to live in social groups and cougars don't.
>
I think that is too strong a statement to defend. If culture must be
genetically determined in the broadest sense, but I doubt you could find
a "culture" gene, or whatever. Culture has its own identity, and
conveys its own information and prescriptions to later generations. It
is a second channel of inhereitance, effectively.
red
> > If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
>
> to situations not covered by the axioms.
That seems a pretty LOGICAL statement, wouldn't you say? In which case
morality is just a subset of logic, no?
red
>
Of course. How silly of me to have forgotten.
red
> It holds as much water as any other code of morality that bases itself on
> a set of unprovable axioms, which means all of them.
What is the basis for claiming that morality requires unprovable axioms?
red
> > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
>
> It holds as much water as any other code of morality that bases itself on
> a set of unprovable axioms, which means all of them.
You are using circular logic. No morality can be logical because it
requires an unprovable axiom. But this is itself an unprovable axiom
offered only to deny the existance of logical morals.
Richter says:
A set of axioms from which logic is used to derive new conclusions to
adapt
to situations not covered by the axioms.
Thus recognising the role of logic, but placing an a priori barrier to
the use of this logic from first causes - the introduction of a
necessary axiom. So we cannot come up with logical axioms, but we can
derive logical conclusions from non-logfical axioms. And therefore
jumbo jets do not, in actual fact, fly.
Ty Beard
>
> >red <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
> >
> >Why, God of course.
> >
> believe you just said that...
>
> *watches the thread spiral down an entirely NEW path...*
>
> Well, I guess I'll just start it off...
>
Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come from?
What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> > red <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > If logic is not the origin of morality, what is?
> >
> > Why, God of course.
>
Happy to help.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Aaron Pound wrote:
>
> > It holds as much water as any other code of morality that bases itself
on
> > a set of unprovable axioms, which means all of them.
>
Well, no one has been able to do it yet, but maybe you can?
--Ty Beard
Terry Austin
Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:veGR3.465$Iv2.16...@news.randori.com...
> Varsil Savai <var...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3815e5ca.955471@news...
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:30:17 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Why, God of course.
> > >
> > believe you just said that...
> >
> > *watches the thread spiral down an entirely NEW path...*
> >
> > Well, I guess I'll just start it off...
> >
> > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
>
> Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come from?
> What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
>
with moral values being rooted in that which enables us, as
a species, to survive (which is definitely not the same thing
as personal survival - evolution is a species sort of thing,
not an individual one.)
YMMV, of course. But it is the more obvious answer.
Terry Austin
Avram Grumer
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Varsil Savai <var...@home.com> wrote in message news:3815e5ca.955471@news...
> >
> > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
>
> Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come
> from? What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
It comes from human beings. Most speakers of English will readily admit
that there exist certain rules that govern the formation of grammatical
sentences in that language, so that we can point to a particular sentence
and say "That is a grammatical senence" or "That is an ungrammatical
sentence," without the necessity of hypothesizing some Divine Being who
originated these laws. Why should we nedd to imagine a divine source for
moral law when we don't need one for grammatical law?
--
Avram Grumer | Any sufficiently advanced
Home: av...@bigfoot.com | technology is indistinguishable
http://www.pigsandfishes.org | from an error message.
Ty Beard
> In article <veGR3.465$Iv2.16...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
> > > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
> >
> > Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come
> > from? What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
>
> It comes from human beings. Most speakers of English will readily admit
> that there exist certain rules that govern the formation of grammatical
> sentences in that language, so that we can point to a particular sentence
> and say "That is a grammatical senence" or "That is an ungrammatical
> sentence," without the necessity of hypothesizing some Divine Being who
> originated these laws. Why should we nedd to imagine a divine source for
> moral law when we don't need one for grammatical law?
Because we can make up a consistent and objective grammatical law. Please do
so vis-a-vis morality. Give us valid, objective test or law to determine if
something is moral.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:7v7d43$2j...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
> > Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come
from?
> > What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
> >
> Well, the obvious answer would be our racial unconsciousness,
> with moral values being rooted in that which enables us, as
> a species, to survive (which is definitely not the same thing
> as personal survival - evolution is a species sort of thing,
> not an individual one.)
>
> YMMV, of course. But it is the more obvious answer.
Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our species'
chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old people
who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
--Ty Beard
Varsil Savai
Heh, maybe you missed the term 'congenital' in there. That's not what
I'd like to inherit... :)
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:avram-
> > In article <veGR3.465$Iv2.16...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
>
> > > > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
> > >
> > > from? What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
> >
> > that there exist certain rules that govern the formation of grammatical
> > sentences in that language, so that we can point to a particular sentence
> > and say "That is a grammatical senence" or "That is an ungrammatical
> > sentence," without the necessity of hypothesizing some Divine Being who
> > originated these laws. Why should we nedd to imagine a divine source for
> > moral law when we don't need one for grammatical law?
>
> Because we can make up a consistent and objective grammatical law. Please do
> something is moral.
>
> --Ty Beard
I figure you're correct- we don't have a consistent and objective moral
law because we CAN'T make one.
Of course, IMO, this is for the same reason that we also can't make one
for, say, determining who was at fault in a car wreck. We come up with
arbitrary rules and rough guidelines that _usually_ work, but they
sometimes fail because there are just too many variables involved for
any 'simple' set of rules to always work.
I'd say that the same is true for almost anything involving personal
relationships- there are way too many factors involved for any ruleset
to always give us the right answer. And considering that people often
disagree over whether or not a given answer is 'right', it becomes
pretty much impossible to come up with a ruleset that everyone would
agree with.
I mean, you start with something as simple as "Killing other people is
bad" and there will still be LOTS of quibbles, counter-arguments, and
disagreements over what should be considered 'people' and whatnot. Then
try a more morally ambiguous question, like coming up with rules for
determining when it's moral for us to send troops to try and enforce
peace in a war-torn country... ugh. You'll never be able to convince
everyone that your decision is morally 'right', whichever side of the
debate you come down on.
Kiz
Lone Wolf
It brings happiness.
2 clarifications (because otherwise y'all will think I'm crazy)
happiness and pleasure are 2 different things
I didn't say "it brings you happiness."
No genetics, no God. Welcome to China.
Lao Wolf -Hope is the only constant
Aaron Pound
> Aaron Pound wrote:
>
> > It holds as much water as any other code of morality that bases itself on
> > a set of unprovable axioms, which means all of them.
>
> What is the basis for claiming that morality requires unprovable axioms?
Empirical evidence. Do you have an example of a moral code that does not
require that you start with an unprovable axiom? If you do, let the rest of us
in on it.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Bryant Durrell
John Rawls, _On Justice_. It's an attempt to establish a moral code
without unprovable axioms which, while it may not succeed, is at least
considered important enough to refute by political philosophers from
opposing schools.
Have you read it?
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know
where we can find information on it." -- Samuel Johnson
Christopher Adams
>> What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
>>
> with moral values being rooted in that which enables us, as
> a species, to survive (which is definitely not the same thing
> as personal survival - evolution is a species sort of thing,
> not an individual one.)
Yay! Jung and evolution.
FWIW, I agree with you, Terry. As Heinlein (I think) said, morals are society's
code for the individual's survival; ethics are an individual's code for
society's survival.
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
The grave of Karl Marx is just another Communist plot.
Jesus said to them, "Who do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological
manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma
of which we find the ultimate meaning in our
interpersonal relationships." And Jesus said, "What?"
And the angel said unto the shepherds,
"Shove off. This is cattle country."
Jim Cowling
>
>Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come from?
>What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
Oh, please. What you're saying is that it's not possible to be a moral
atheist.
-------
Jim Cowling, Unaligned Merchant of Menace/Writer/Atheist/Geek
The Plains of Amaterasu: more original Clan War stuff than you could ever use at
http://members.home.com/scowling -- scow...@home.com
-------
Brian Stewart
>
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:7v7d43$2j...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> > Well, the obvious answer would be our racial unconsciousness,
> > with moral values being rooted in that which enables us, as
> > a species, to survive (which is definitely not the same thing
> > as personal survival - evolution is a species sort of thing,
> > not an individual one.)
> >
> > YMMV, of course. But it is the more obvious answer.
>
> Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
> behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our species'
> chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old people
> who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
>
> --Ty Beard
Well, for the longest time old people weren't a problem since 30 years
old was the average life expectancy. If you lived any longer, you HAD
to be doing something right! (and, therefore, it was a good idea to keep
you around to tell others about it.)
By the same token, I imagine that retarded children also generally
didn't live long enough, nor occur often enough, to matter from an
evolutionary standpoint.
Also, it is generally good for a species not to kill members of its own
pack. The "safety in numbers" approach.
At least some societies did develop the tradition of thowing out old
people (and others that they didn't consider productive anymore) to fend
for themselves. I don't know how common this was.
BAS
Brian Stewart
What, and deny YOUR heirs?! How selfish! :-)
BAS
Varsil Savai
<bast...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
Also, congenital heart defects tend to keep you from having heirs
(unless you also had a gene to achieve sexual maturity before birth
:).
red
> Empirical evidence. Do you have an example of a moral code that does not
> require that you start with an unprovable axiom? If you do, let the rest of us
> in on it.
I have asked what you mean by a moral code - a theory of life, a form of
behaviour, what?
You also have not explained WHY moral behavior, as opposed to the
behaviour of building planes, *requires* an unprovable axiom. You have
merely stated so axiomatically.
If I consider that animals often show care toward their young, and
cooperative hunting/feeding, then it seems obvious to me that
cooperation is a succesful behaviour. That is a physical observation.
It leads to a conclusion that cooperative behaviour has survival value.
This could be construed as a "moral" code.
red
>
> Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
> behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our species'
> chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old people
> who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
The question is, WOULD they enhance our survival? By culling the old,
you lose a great deal of psychological support and broad experience of
life ands its problems. And as for retarded children, it could be
argued that the spychological attachment outwieghs the nominal burden -
after all, we are riuch, technological societies - we can afford it.
red
> At least some societies did develop the tradition of thowing out old
> people (and others that they didn't consider productive anymore) to fend
> for themselves. I don't know how common this was.
Animals and people both exhibit "death choices" among the old, oin which
the elderly withdraw voluntarily from society and generally attempt to
survbice on their own, failing of course. This seems a natural method
of control to the extent it is needed - although in technological
societies, it seldom is.
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
> > behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our
species'
> > chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old
people
> > who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
>
> The question is, WOULD they enhance our survival?
I think so. More time to spend procreating rather than taking care of old
folks or retarded children, for instance.
In any case, *if* it does enhance our species' chance of survival, then this
puts a damper on the morality = survival case, it seems to me.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:iyNR3.50$I82....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> In article <veGR3.465$Iv2.16...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >
> >Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come
from?
> >What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
>
> Oh, please. What you're saying is that it's not possible to be a moral
> atheist.
Nope -- but that may well be the logical consequence of what I did say. Of
course, if you can give me a definition of morality that works (i.e., that
human beings broadly agree with), I'm virtually all ears.
Where does an atheist get his definition of right and wrong?
--Ty Beard
Ann Dupuis
> Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
> behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our species'
> chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old people
> who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
The females of most mammalian species remain fertile throughout their lifetime.
Female homo sapiens do not.
I read somewhere that the species-survival-related reason behind this is most
likely Nature's way of limiting the physical stress (and likelihood of death)
of childbirth enough to ensure that *some* female "old people" remain to help
with child-rearing. A very big part of human survivability depends on the
passing of information and knowledge from generation to generation. Longer
life spans (or at least the potential for such, barring accidents, disease,
war, and child-bearing) are a convenient by-product of this.
So on a purely species-survival level, caring for "old people" is a winning strategy.
The same could be said for people with physical disabilities not necessarily
related to age.
So far as the "usefulness" of retarded children (or other mentally or
emotionally disabled people) to the survival of the species -- well, we've
actually "evolved" beyond the point where survival of the species has
paramount influence on our behavior. Society has taken on a life of its own,
and appears to be subject to its own laws of evolution.
But on a biological level, perhaps murdering "retarded children" is "immoral"
simply because we can *afford,* as a species, to care for them, and they do
actually contribute to the community in many ways.
Best regards,
Ann Dupuis
Grey Ghost Press, Inc.
ghost...@fudgerpg.com
http://www.fudgerpg.com
red
>
> Nope -- but that may well be the logical consequence of what I did say. Of
How very, uh, "convenient" for the theists among us.
> course, if you can give me a definition of morality that works (i.e., that
> human beings broadly agree with), I'm virtually all ears.
First explain what YOU mean by morality. I suspect that if I offer such
a definition, you would assert it's not a moral behaviour becuase it
does not employ an unprovable axiom.
> Where does an atheist get his definition of right and wrong?
>
By observing the world, and thinking about it.
Where did you get yours? Please tick appropriate boxes:
[] Read it in the Bible
[] Told by a Preacher*
[] Direct revelation from God
* AKA Minister, Priest, Devotee, Vicar blah blah
Ty Beard
> > Nope -- but that may well be the logical consequence of what I did say.
Of
>
> How very, uh, "convenient" for the theists among us.
>
> > course, if you can give me a definition of morality that works (i.e.,
that
> > human beings broadly agree with), I'm virtually all ears.
>
> First explain what YOU mean by morality.
Oh, pick any reasonable definition you wish.
> I suspect that if I offer such
> a definition, you would assert it's not a moral behaviour becuase it
> does not employ an unprovable axiom.
Well, I'd first see if your definition actually works.
> > Where does an atheist get his definition of right and wrong?
> >
>
> By observing the world, and thinking about it.
So by merely observing the world and thinking about the world we can
determine how to be moral?
> Where did you get yours? Please tick appropriate boxes:
>
[X] Read it in the Bible
But that's irrelevant.
--Ty Beard
Avram Grumer
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:avram-
> > In article <veGR3.465$Iv2.16...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
>
> > > > The Divine Command theory of morality just doesn't hold water...
> > >
> > > Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it come
> > > from? What rule can you use to determine if something is moral?
> >
> > It comes from human beings. Most speakers of English will readily admit
> > that there exist certain rules that govern the formation of grammatical
> > sentences in that language, so that we can point to a particular sentence
> > and say "That is a grammatical senence" or "That is an ungrammatical
> > sentence," without the necessity of hypothesizing some Divine Being who
> > originated these laws. Why should we nedd to imagine a divine source for
> > moral law when we don't need one for grammatical law?
>
> Because we can make up a consistent and objective grammatical law.
Well, we actually can't create set of grammatical standards that is
universally recognized by all speakers of what they consider English at
all times and in all places, which is another way that morals are like
language. Even conservative speakers of the language recognize that there
are different grammatical standards for, say, long essays and short
newspaper headlines.
> Please do so vis-a-vis morality. Give us valid, objective test or law
> to determine if something is moral.
What on earth makes you think that such a thing is even possible in the
first place? As far as I know, there has never been a moral law that has
been universally recognized as fully valid by every person in every
culture, unless maybe you mean really vague tautalogical laws like "You're
not allowed to kill anybody except for the people you're allowed to kill."
Avram Grumer
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> red <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote in message
> news:381816F0...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net...
> > Ty Beard wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
> > > behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our
> > > species' chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to
> > > murder old people who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
> >
> > The question is, WOULD they enhance our survival?
>
> I think so. More time to spend procreating rather than taking care of old
> folks or retarded children, for instance.
Why do you assume that spending more time procreating would enhance the
human species' chance of survival? Humans have very long childhoods, so
each child represents a significant drain on a family's resources. Having
elderly relatives around increases the resources that can be spent on each
child, making it more likely that each child will survive and prosper in
the long run.
BTW, while it may be considered immoral in modern American and European
cultures to kill old people or retarded children, these aren't universal
moral standards. I've read that in Inuit cultures old people are stranded
on ice floes to die when they've outlived their usefulness. (This being
Usenet, some expert on the Inuit is now going to tell me that I've bought
into an urban legend.) In lots of cultures infanticide was allowed under
certain conditions -- why do you think there are so many fairy tales and
legends that start out with an infant being left exposed on a hillside?
Ty Beard
> In article <uiJR3.473$Iv2.19...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
> > Please do so vis-a-vis morality. Give us valid, objective test or law
> > to determine if something is moral.
>
> What on earth makes you think that such a thing is even possible in the
> first place? As far as I know, there has never been a moral law that has
> been universally recognized as fully valid by every person in every
> culture, unless maybe you mean really vague tautalogical laws like "You're
> not allowed to kill anybody except for the people you're allowed to kill."
The question I originally responded to was "if not logic, then where does
morality come from". Are you saying that there is no objective standard of
morality? That "good" is simply whatever I think it is? That "evil" is
merely that which I disagree with?
--Ty Beard
Warren J. Dew
Ty Beard posts, in part:
Nope -- but that may well be the logical consequence of what I did say. Of
course, if you can give me a definition of morality that works (i.e., that
human beings broadly agree with), I'm virtually all ears.
Heh. No religion has been successful at that, either. One can at best come up
with a moral code that works for oneself and others who are similar.
Where does an atheist get his definition of right and wrong?
From society, same as everyone else. In both cases, a few people supplement
socialization with explicit analysis.
Warren
Avram Grumer
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:avram-28109...@manhattan.crossover.com...
>
> > In article <uiJR3.473$Iv2.19...@news.randori.com>, "Ty Beard"
>
> > > Please do so vis-a-vis morality. Give us valid, objective test or law
> > > to determine if something is moral.
> >
> > What on earth makes you think that such a thing is even possible in the
> > first place? As far as I know, there has never been a moral law that has
> > been universally recognized as fully valid by every person in every
> > culture, unless maybe you mean really vague tautalogical laws like "You're
> > not allowed to kill anybody except for the people you're allowed to kill."
>
> The question I originally responded to was "if not logic, then where does
> morality come from".
Right. Morality is the set of standards that a person or group uses to
determine the appropriateness of behavior. When I hear the question
"Where does morality come from?" I interpret it as a question about the
origin of those standards. The standards that human beings use are
generally of human invention. Different groups of humans, left to invent
standards without contact with each other, will probably invent differing
standards, though if the problems which are driving them to create the
standards are similar, there may well be similarities in the standards
they create.
> Are you saying that there is no objective standard of morality?
Yes. There is no more an "objective" standard of morality than there is
an "objective" language or an "objective" system of measurement or an
"objective" computer operating system.
> That "good" is simply whatever I think it is? That "evil" is
> merely that which I disagree with?
It's a bit more complicated than that, because human beings live in
societies. There's cultural morality and personal morality, and the two
don't always match up. But yeah, what I think is "good" is good, as far
as I'm concerned; likewise for "evil."
Ty Beard
news:19991028153020.25598.00003486@ng-
So, does "society" -- whatever that is -- define morality?
--Ty Beard
Michael T. Richter
> there is an "objective" language or an "objective" system of
> measurement or an "objective" computer operating system.
But there *IS* an objective computer operating system...
...Oops! I meant "object-oriented computer operating system". Never mind.
:-)
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Warren J. Dew
Well, the obvious answer would be our racial unconsciousness,
with moral values being rooted in that which enables us, as
a species, to survive ...
To which Ty Beard responds:
Yes. But I'm troubled by the fact that we tend to think that certain
behaviors are immoral -- even when they obviously would enhance our species'
chance of survival. Why do most folks think it's wrong to murder old people
who are no longer productive. Or retarded children?
Brian Stewart covered the issue of why such people might actually be societally
productive.
But even if they are not, there might be sociological reasons for this
morality. Individuals will differ slightly in their judgement of whether a
child is retarded and a burden on society, or merely backward, but still
ultimately productive. If people were to feel free to kill any they viewed as
retarded, and since it's not possible to unkill those one thinks others killed
in error, these errors would cause the loss of some who were in the backward
but still productive category. It's possible that this loss of backward but
marginally productive people would be more costly, from the species viewpoint,
than retaining all the actually retarded children who are burdens.
In addition, permitting the killing of some people may erode the prohibition
against killing others; again, the cost of increased deaths among the
productive may outweight the cost of keeping the counterproductive around.
Warren
Lone Wolf
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:iyNR3.50$I82....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Why? And if some Divine Being does not create it, where does it
> come
> from?
> >
> a moral
> > atheist.
> Nope -- but that may well be the logical consequence of what I did
> say. Of
> course, if you can give me a definition of morality that works
> (i.e., that
> human beings broadly agree with), I'm virtually all ears.
We look around. Notice the world around you. What helps your
survival? What helps others? What promotes general happiness (to go
back to my previous post, which no one replied to. Am I mass
killfiled?) We think. Use logic and our best instincts. And come up
with what we think is best. Some do better than others.
Lone Wolf - Hope is the only constant.