Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/11/02 10:55pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "It's hard to argue with irreducability" on 12/11/02 6:53pm
>>Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an
>>irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be
>>further reduced into other axioms to support it. A
>>possible example: can you prove the law of
>>noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless
>>objectively true, however.
>
>Yes, I agree. But this analogy doesn't prove your
>point. It is useful only in illustrating your point.
True enough. I haven’t stated otherwise. From this and your other comments on the post it seems you may have misunderstood the purpose of this analogy. I was not using it to prove my point, only to explain it.
>>Another possible example,
>>can you prove that homicide is morally wrong? Perhaps
>>not, but it is nonetheless objectively true.
>
>I don't think homicide being wrong is an objective
>truth. I think it's relative to our culture. In our
>culture, we all agree that homicide is wrong.
>Certainly, it is good if we all agree to this. It
>protects our society from chaos. But I cannot agree
>that this is an objective, absolute moral truth.
You almost seem a little inconsistent here, since there are hints of you rejecting moral objectivism. If morals are not objective, why is it “good” that we agree to tabooing homicide? Why is it “good” to protect our society from chaos? Is there a real objective “good”?
>>Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the
>>case that all irreducible truths are so easily
>>perceived or agreed upon. Perhaps it lies also with
>>the value of a human life, though that can
>>understandably be disputable.
>
>Well, if it's an irreducible truth, you'd think it
>would be easy enough to agree on.
Again, that need not necessarily be the case. I have yet to see any identifiable logical reason for this being so. (It is logically conceivable for everyone being mad and thinking that 2 + 2 = 5, but that still wouldn't change the objective truth.)
>>>Well, the whole idea of "person" is very vague, I
>>>think.
>>
>>It is perhaps easier to recognize than to define. I
>>am a person. You are a person. Murdering you is an
>>unethical act. Murdering me is an unethical act.
>
>You still didn't answer my question. What about the
>example I gave of the severely retarded person's life
>versus the life of the very intelligent, helpful dog?
>Which one's life is more valuable?
I don’t know. I would hate to see either life perished.
>By your
>definition, the human's life would be more valuable
>simply because he's human, but by any objective
>estimation, the dog's life would be worth more, since
>it contributes more to society.
Objective estimation? Do you accept utilitarianism?
>>Unjustified
>>murder of persons is objectively unethical. Thus, if
>>an unborn child is a person, killing the unborn child
>>for the purposes of birth control is unethical.
>
>Again, I don't agree that murder is _objectively_
>unethical. I think it's a matter of practicality that
>we aren't allowed to murder each other. It keeps our
>societies together and functioning.
Again, now I see possible signs of utilitarianism, but then again I see your claim of murder not being objectively ethical. So then, why is it “good” for society to be together and functioning?
>I see no
>universal law that says murder is wrong.
And I “see” no universal law that says it is “good” to have a society functioning together.
>Since God created nature, why don't we just
>look to nature for our morality? They kill whenever
>necessary, and for various reasons. Why would God
>have them do this if not to help us know the natural
>way things should be done?
There are alternate theistic explanations than what you seem to be implying.
>>I'm speaking from a standpoint where the immorality of
>>homicide is an axiom, a given. Few would dispute that
>>terminating pregnancy justifies homicide, even if we
>>can't think of a proof demonstrating why it is wrong.
>>You believe, as I do, that homicide is morally wrong,
>>even if you can't precisely explain why.
>
>I completely disagree. The immorality of homicide is
>not an axiom in any sense. 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic,
>the the immorality of homicide is culturally derived.
I disagree.
>The very reason it _isn't_ axiomatic is what you have
>listed... we can't think of a proof demonstrating why
>it is wrong. We simply _feel_ it is wrong.
>
>I am starting to see why you are able to hold onto
>your beliefs if you accept such things as axiomatic
>and irreducible. Your criteria for these things is
>much lower than mine.
Is it? If we examine ourselves closely, we may find a different answer. (I’ll expand on this later in this post.)
>>We have to be careful on what we call “biases.” True,
>>it may not be proven. But it is possible to
>>rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence.
>
>Again, it's becoming more clear how you are able to
>maintain your beliefs in an invisible, untestable
>being.
Not untestable, any more than atheism is untestable.
Believe it or not Ben, we both rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence. We both base our beliefs on what we intuitively “feel” to be true.
A quick example. How do we know that memory is ever reliable? One could try to justify belief in memory by saying something like, “I remember many times when I recall where I parked my car. When I went to the place where my memory told me I parked my car, it was there.” One could also say, “I remember people telling me my memory is sometimes reliable.” Yet, since those responses would be using memory to justify the reliability of memory, there is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning (assuming the truth of something that the argument is supposed to establish). Consequently, we have yet to provide any real evidence to support the reliability of memory. We can go and do the same for testimony and sense experience. No proof. Not one shred. I suggest you go to this brief web page of mine for further elucidation on this matter. Feel free to comment on it if you wish. I’d like to hear your input.
>>See my above comments. Nonetheless, I do agree that
>>these are very good questions to be asking. I myself
>>have asked these questions on more than one occasion.
>
>Good. What did you conclude?
I think you know the answer to that. Remember what I’ve said in this post and the ones before that?
>>>I don't really see how feeling pain is all that
>>>important.
>>
>>Well, consider what we have here. The ability to feel
>>pain implies sentience, and sentience implies life.
>>It is my belief that killing a sentient human being
>>for the purposes of birth control is an unethical act,
>>and I am unable to see any point of view that would
>>dictate otherwise.
>
>Then by your logic, you must certainly believe the
>same thing about cats and dogs, which clearly feel
>pain.
You’re stretching what I said. I simply said that killing a sentient human being is morally wrong when done for the purposes of birth control. That doesn’t imply the same goes for cats and dogs.
Nonetheless, I do believe that kitty cats and puppy dogs should not be unjustifiably tortured and killed.
BTW, if we’re speaking about logic and all, how do you know they feel pain? What “proof” do you have?
You don’t. Ultimately, we both intuitively “feel” that they are capable of suffering pain. I look into my cat’s eyes. I see him meow. I here him shriek when I accidentally step on his tail. And I here him purr when he his petted gently. How do I know all these responses to my actions aren’t caused only by mindless chemical reactions? How can I disprove the notion that such chemical reactions are what’s causing the responses instead of sentience? As of this moment, I can’t provide you with a proof to explain why I believe my cat is capable of feeling. I just look in to the cat’s eyes, observe him, and know.
Bottom line: if killing sentient human beings for the purpose of birth control is unethical, then is abortion (for the purposes of birth control) an ethical act when done on a fetus? I say yes. Are there any who think this to be false? (Note: a conditional statement/question like this being true/affirmative only means that the consequent logically follows from the antecedent; it doesn't necessarily mean that the antecedent is true.)
>>>3) I (and you) may have some inherent biases by
>>>virtue of being human that are so deeply ingrained,
>>>they simply seem like absolute moral truths.
>>
>>Quite correct. I would like to point out, however,
>>that there exists the possibility of these “biases”
>>being correct, even if we can’t explain why (though I
>>suppose you are already aware of this possibility).
>
>Yes, there is that possibility. But I don't usually
>base strong beliefs on possibility.
What I said was only an observation. It was not meant to be an airtight persuasive argument.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 